Obama's Green Inaugural

The upcoming inauguration will be the first held in the age of green living. Accordingly, steps have been taken to ensure that the environmental footprint of celebrations are kept to a minimum.

In addition to official inaugural events, several companies and organizations are hosting their own parties and balls where steps have been taken to make things eco-friendly.

Below is a list of eco-actions taken for official inauguration activities...

• Carbon Neutral Inaugural Balls
• Organic Menus
• Valet Bicycle Parking
• Invitations Printed on Recycled Paper
• "Green Carpet" Made of Recycled Products
• A Liaison Provided to the Presidential Inaugural Committee from the EPA to Advise on Decisions
• Parade Floats Made of Recycled Floats of Years Past, Including a 60-foot Long, 24-foot High American Flag Float Built for Reagan's 1985 Inauguration
• Biodegradable Food Containers
• Utensils Made of Corn-based Plastics
• Expanded Composting Efforts
  

Energy & Environment: Obama's Top Priorities

During a debate with John McCain in October, President-Elect Obama was asked what his top priority would be upon entering the White House. He was clear and concise in his answer; energy.

Obama explained that our energy problems were directly tied to rising consumer costs, dangerous foreign policy decisions and slowing job creation. He saw investment in domestic energy as a solution to both economic and international challenges.

As the new administration is created and indications of priorities begin to appear, ther are signs that Barack Obama is keeping his promise on energy reform.

First, just two weeks ago, Obama told Joe Klein of Newsweek that his number one priority upon entering office is addressing the energy and environmental crises' facing our country. Many are suggesting this will happen quickly if Obama and Congressional Democrats include funding for energy infrastructure re-building and new energy development in a fresh economic stimulus package that could soon take shape.

Second, Obama has already selected very experienced environmental advisers to head his energy and environment transition team. The man in charge of transitioning the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy is David Hayes, former deputy secretary of the Department of the Interior under Bill Clinton. In addition, Clinton's EPA Administrator Carol Browner and Department of the Interior Solicitor John Leashy join several other environmental advisers from the Clinton administration to help in the transition.

Third, Obama is considering well-known progressive leaders for posts in environmental agencies and inside the White House. Jason Grumet, President of the Bipartisan Policy Center and a leader in the Obama campaign on energy issues, is being considered for a top spot in the administration. Robert Kennedy, Jr., son of Robert Kennedy and famous environmental activist, is reportedly being considered for the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, former Sierra Club president Lisa Renstrom; California Air Resources Board chair Mary Nichols; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Kathleen McGinty; and Massachusetts Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles, are all also being considered for environmental posts inside the Obama administration.

As things begin to take shape for the new Presidency, all signs point to environmental and energy reform as high priorities for Barack Obama.

Environmental Ballot Initiatives Round-Up

The dust is beginning to clear as attention on President-Elect Barack Obama's stunning victory turns to cabinet positions and glimpses of the new administration's direction.

Before we dissect some of the information already coming out of Obama's administration, let's look at some of the environmental wins and losses on election day.

Five particular environmental ballot initiatives attracted the most attention on November 4th.

1. Missouri: Missouri's Proposition C would require the state's investor-owned utilities to generate or purchase at least 2% of customer power from renewable sources by 2011. By 2021, 15% of their power must be generated from renewables. The initiative passed 66 - 34 percent.
2. Colorado: Amendment 58 would eliminate tax credits for oil and gas producers. Those funds would be redirected to social and environmental purposes including college scholarships, habitat protection, water clean-up and clean energy development. The amendment failed by a 3 to 2 ratio, largely due to an oil industry funded campaign that threatened higher energy bills for consumers as a result of the amendment.
3. Minnesota: The Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment would raise sales-and-use taxes by 3/8ths of 1% to protect wildlife habitat, preserve cultural heritage, create parks and more. The funding would greatly assist in cleaning up polluted lakes and protecting wildlife, which has become a lower priority in the state's spending. The amendment passed and will create $290 million of new funding per year for 25 years for conservation.
4. California: Proposition 7 would nearly double the amount of renewable energy electric utilities must generate for consumers. Currently, utilities must reach 33% of renewable energy sources by 2020, Proposition 7 would raise that standard to 50% by 2025. The Natural Resources Defense Council, a pro-environment organization, opposes Proposition 7 because they believe it is poorly designed and creates loopholes for utility companies. Proposition 7 failed to pass.
5. California: Proposition 10 was supported by oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens. The intitiatve would provide billions of dollars for the purchase and development of fuel efficient vehicles and research into renewable energy. The environmental community also opposed Proposition 10, largely because of its emphasis on development of natural gas, a resource Pickens' has financial ties to. Proposition 10 failed to pass.

Vote: It's the Green Thing to Do

Everywhere you look we are being told to vote. Starbucks, Krispy Kreme and Ben & Jerry's are all offering free products Tuesday for voters. Celebrities, athletes, politicians and the media have done all they can to encourage voting. Yet, the turnout, even in this historic election, will still not be as high as it should be.

There are probably a million reasons why so many eligible voters refuse to participate in elections, even if they're not rational or reasonable. If there is one excuse, however, that simply cannot be tolerated, it's the idea that the President is a figure head who doesn't actually do anything.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The President, as head of the Executive Branch, oversees all of the federal agencies. This includes the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the Food & Drug Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, etc. The President will appoint the heads of these agencies, set goals for rule-making and will decide the extent to which agency rules are enforced.

We have seen how agency behaviors can impact our environment. First there were the controversies in the EPA that led to Congress asking for EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's resignation. Then there was the submission of new rules to weaken the Fish & Wildlife Service's authority over the Endangered Species Act. Next, there were complaints by agency scientists that political decisions were disrupting their work. Finally, the Pentagon and federal agencies worked together twice to block toxic clean-up of former military sites and to keep toxic chemicals in our drinking water.

In addition to overseeing federal agencies, the President appoints judges to federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The courts have played pivotal roles in interpreting important environmental laws and the actions of federal agencies. They have rejected the Bush Administration's intervention in state pollution control, they have forced the EPA to investigate the impact of carbon emissions on human health and they have required improved restrictions on lead emissions. The next President may appoint up to 3 new Supreme Court Justices, which will significantly shape the direction of environmental law.

Finally, the President has a large influence over the federal budget and how research dollars will be spent. We are on the cusp of a clean energy revolution in the United States that will create jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. To cross the threshold, we need quick development of new energy technology. Research is done in our nation's universities, labs and inside the military. The next President will have discretion over how money is allocated and which research projects take priority.

There is no doubt that environmental progress, or lack thereof, is tied to the Presidency. We've even seen state and local action thwarted by federal intervention. To believe the President has no influence over the direction of the United States is not only wrong, but it is dangerous.

So tomorrow make sure you get out and vote. We may change our light bulbs and buy smaller cars to be greener, but the progress we make personally could be undermined by a bad President.

Election Round-Up: Obama vs McCain on the Environment

With one week until election day and with many states already voting, we decided to condense all of our McCain & Obama related posts into one easy guide.

Keep in mind the date that many of these posts were written. Some of the information has changed or is no longer relevant. Also, remember that this is a pro-environment blog. Our intention isn't to give the candidates equal time, just equal expectations with regard to their environmental records.

Obama:

• Humane Society Breaks Tradition, Endorses Obama
• Obama's VP: Biden on the Environment
• Video: Obama on McCain's Tire Gauge Joke
• Like McCain, Obama Flips on Drilling
• Tim Kaine: Obama's Potential VP on the Environment
• Obama Attacks McCain on Energy
• Dear Senator Obama - Please Say No to Coal
• Obama Supports "Clean Coal" in West Virginia
• It's McCain vs. Obama, but Neither is Carbon Neutral
• Hillary and Obama Dust-Up Over Oil Contributions
• President Obama's Environmental Policies
• Obama and the 2005 Energy Bill
• Obama vs. McCain on the Environment
• Obama vs. Clinton on the Environment
• With Obama, is it the 1970's Again?
• 2008 Candidates Environmental Policies, Part I
• 2008 Candidates and the Environment UPDATE
• Barack Obama's Environmental Policy
• Presidential Candidates on the Environment
  

McCain:

• Defenders of Wildlife Post New Palin Ad
  
• Palin Fails to Stop Whale Protections
• What McCain Didn't Say in the Debate
• Palin Supports Bridge, Not Beluga Whales
• McCain vs. McCain on the Environment
• Palin Fought Polar Bear Protections for Oil Companies
• McCain's VP: Palin on the Environment
• McCain Selling U.S. Treasures for Campaign Cash
• McCain Fibs, Doesn't Support Wind Energy
• After McCain Flip-Flop, Oil Money Floods Campaign
• Green McCain? Where are the Votes?
• John McCain's Eco-Friendly Shop
• It's McCain vs. Obama, but Neither is Carbon Neutral
• McCain's Environmentalist VP
• Obama vs. McCain on the Environment
• McCain and the Environment
• Republicans Divided Over Warming
• 2008 Candidate Environmental Policies, Part II
• McCain Concerned About Gas and Vilsack Is Out
• McCain Believes Global Warming
• 2008 Candidates and the Environment UPDATE
• Presidential Candidates on the Environment
  

Defenders of Wildlife Post New Palin Ad

Several months ago, the Defenders of Wildlife created an ad discussing Alaska's aerial wolf hunting policy under Gov. Palin. In the ad, the group claimed that Palin's policy allowed hunters to shoot wolves from helicopters during the winter to artificially inflate moose populations for hunting season. Hunters were even paid a bounty by the state for turning in killed wolf paws.

Many view hunting wolves during the winter when they cannot hide to defend themselves and from helicopters when hunters cannot strategically hit the animals in less painful, more paralizing points, as cruel and unsportsmanlike.

The group's newest ad addresses Palin's views on polar bears. Recently, the United States government deemed polar bears a threatened species because of threats to their sea ice habitat from increased global temperatures. Palin sued the Bush administration to block this distinction because oil and gas companies could face limitations in their drilling and refining capacities in the Alaska region as a result. In addition, Palin has allowed polar bears to be hunted for body parts and trophies, according to the ad.

FactCheck.org has reviewed the first Defenders of Wildlife ad and called it "factually correct, though incomplete." According to FactCheck, the issue of whether aerial hunting is ethical is for individuals to decide, but they say that decreasing wolf populations in Alaska was largely permitted for maintenance of moose and caribous populations for "subsistance hunting." Palin did support a 2007 Alaska law that would have expanded aerial hunting to include wolverines, brown bears and wolves. The law also would have reduced requirements to qualify for aerial hunting in certain areas. However, the existing Alaska law has a complex regulatory structre for hunting permits and wildlife population maintenance. FactCheck points out that the issue of aerial hunting is devisive in Alaska.

To read the Defenders of Wildlife's views on Palin's hunting policies, go HERE.
To read FactCheck.org's review of the ad, go HERE.

Below is the polar bear ad recently created by Defenders of Wildlife. It is being aired in several states.

Palin Fails to Stop Whale Protections

In 2006, the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a request to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration calling for Cook Inlet beluga whales to be protected as endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.

Today, the NOAA determined that the beluga whale is not recovering fast enough from initial protections and must be labeled "endangered" to ensure survival of the species.

The population of these beluga whales decreased 50% between 1994 and 1998. Currently their numbers stand at approximately 375 whales.

When the proposal to list the species as endangered was initially submitted, Governor Sarah Palin's administration openly questioned the science supporting increased protections. It is no coincidence that the Interior Department has proposed opening the Cook Inlet where these whales live to oil leases. This is just another example of Palin attempting to block protections for the environment for the benefit of oil and gas industries. She has previously sued the government to block listing of polar bears as threatened species for the same reasons.

To read a full story on the beluga whale situation, click HERE.

What McCain Didn't Say in the Debate

In Wednesday night's debate, John McCain and Barack Obama addresssed domestic issues. One of the most important domestic issues facing America is our energy crisis and the growing need for clean, renewable energy.

Once again, John McCain discussed his support for renewable energy sources and mocked Obama for criticising the safety of nuclear energy. 

The problem is, John McCain conveniently leaves out the most important facts underlying his energy policy. 

First, John McCain's "support" for renewable energy does not actually include any additional funding for research and development of clean, renewable energy sources. The plan, as spelled out on his website, merely calls for "rationalizing existing tax credits." 

Second, John McCain hasn't explained where nuclear waste from the 45 nuclear power plants he plans to have built by 2030 will go. Currently, nuclear waste is sitting idle all over the nation while litigation continues over a controversial Nevada dumping site, Yucca Mountain. John McCain supports dumping in Yucca Mountain but has refused to identify locations in his home state of Arizona for nuclear waste dumping.

Third, John McCain will direct significantly more money to dirty, polluting energy sources than he will for cleaner, renewable sources. McCain's energy policy calls for additional $4 billion in tax breaks for oil companies and a huge investment in coal. 

Its easy to understand why McCain would shy away from discussing in detail his energy policy at a time when Americans are ready for innovation and a green jobs sector, but the devil is always in the details.  

Polar Bears Eat Eachother to Survive

I ran across this stunning headline on CNN.com today, "Polar Bears Resort to Cannabalism as Arctic Ice Shrinks." Things are not well in the Arctic. This past summer, Arctic sea ice shrunk to its second lowest level in recorded history, 30% below the normal level. Scientists have seen a steady decrease in sea ice of 10% per decade, but now they fear that rate has actually increased. In a short time, sea ice is expected to completely disappear during the summer months. 

Obviously human beings cannot survive in the Arctic, but the inhabitants of the sea ice ecosystem are suffering terribly from the increased melt rate. "The Arctic sea ice melt is a disaster for the polar bears," according to Kassie Siegel, staff attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. "They are dependent on the Arctic sea ice for all of their essential behaviors, and as the ice melts and global warming transforms the Arctic, polar bears are starving, drowning, even resorting to cannibalism because they don't have access to their usual food sources."

This extreme behavior by the polar bears is an indication to humans that the conditions in the Arctic are reaching their breaking point. As sea ice melts, it can no longer reflect the sun's radiation. Instead, the darker ocean waters absorb the heat from the sun, causing global temperatures to increase. These changes will result in unusual weather patterns, adjustments in the jet stream and more. 

Back in May, the U.S. Department of the Interior took steps to protect polar bears and their habitat by listing them as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. What actual protection this listing can provide against global climate change is unknown. Its important to remember that Gov. Sarah Palin opposed the listing of the polar bears because she felt the listing would interfere with the oil and gas industry's operations in Alaska. She also believes global warming is a myth. 

To read the full CNN story on the polar bears and Arctic Sea ice, click HERE. 

Humane Society Breaks Tradition, Endorses Obama

The Humane Society Legislative Fund (the Fund) endorses candidates strictly based on their views on issues relating to animals. The group steers clear of differntiating candidates on political party lines. This has led to the endorsement of hundreds of congressional candidates from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Never before, however, have they ever endorsed a candidate in the presidential election. This year they felt it was necessary.

Yesterday, the Fund's Board of Directors, which is made up of Democrats and Republicans, voted unanimously to endorse Senator Barack Obama. 

In their endorsement, the Fund's Board explained their reasons for endorsing Obama..."Senator Barack Obama has been a solid supporter of animal protection at both the state and federal levels. As an Illinois state senator, he backed at least a dozen animal protection laws, including those to strengthen the penalties for animal cruelty, to help animal shelters, to promote spaying and neutering, and to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption.  In the U.S. Senate, he has consistently co-sponsored multiple bills to combat animal fighting and horse slaughter, and has supported efforts to increase funding for adequate enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and federal laws to combat animal fighting and puppy mills."

The Fund listed some of the animal protection bills that Senator John McCain has also co-sponsored but said that he has been largely absent on many important animal issues in the Senate. Far and away, the biggest reason the Fund failed to endorse Senator McCain was his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin for his running mate, whom they say has done more harm to animals than any other current governor in the United States. 

The Fund explained their discomfort with Palin this way, "Palin engineered a campaign of shooting predators from airplanes and helicopters, in order to artificially boost the populations of moose and caribou for trophy hunters. She offered a $150 bounty for the left foreleg of each dead wolf as an economic incentive for pilots and aerial gunners to kill more of the animals, even though Alaska voters had twice approved a ban on the practice. This year, the issue was up again for a vote of the people, and Palin led the fight against it—in fact, she helped to spend $400,000 of public funds to defeat the initiative."

To read the Humane Society Legislative Fund's full endorsement statement, click HERE. 

 Here is a video from the Defenders of Wildlife explaining Gov. Palin's support for aerial hunting...

Palin Supports Bridge, not Beluga Whales

For being the Governor of Alaska for roughly 18 months, Gov. Palin has taken the side of industry over environment several times. 

It began with the proposed listing of the polar bear as a threatened species. Her administration sued the Bush administration to block listing of the bears. The lawsuit stated that Gov. Palin opposed the listing because "it will deter activities such as commerical fisheries, oil and gas exploration and development, transportation and tourism."

Next we find out that Sarah Palin conveniently chooses to believe that global climate change is not influenced by man's activities. This is coming from a politician who served as Chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a group that works to expand the sale of oil and gas around the country. 

Now the AP is reporting that a $600 million bridge connecting Gov. Palin's hometown of 7,000 people and a larger city is being supported by Palin even though it will greatly impact beluga whale populations. The money for the bridge comes from an earmark request by Alaskan Congressman Don Young. Young's son-in-law owns a small piece of property near the mouth of the proposed bridge site and the bridge will be named after the Congressman. 

Scientists have reported that construction of the bridge will have a negative impact on a population of beluga whales who live near the area. Currently, the National Marine Fisheries Service is evaluating whether to list the particular beluga whales who inhabit the area as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Gov. Palin has publicly urged the NMFS not to list the species as endangered. 

Read more about the bridge to Wasilla HERE. 

McCain vs. McCain on the Environment

Last night in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Senator McCain vowed to put America ahead of party. 

This statement struck me as odd considering that since becoming the GOP's presumptive nominee, McCain has abandoned his past moderate environmental views and adopted the much less environmentally friendly platform of his party.

On Fuel Efficiency --- 

• Old McCain: In 2002 he sponsored a bill in the Senate with John Kerry raising fuel efficiency standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2016. Read more HERE. 
  
• New McCain: In 2007 he failed to even vote on a law, which passed the Senate 86-8, that raised fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Read more HERE.

On Global Warming ---

• Old McCain: In 2003, McCain and Joe Lieberman sponsored the Senate's first law that restricted carbon emissions. Read more HERE.
• New McCain: In 2007 the Senate failed by one vote to pass a tax credit that would help expand clean energy sources, McCain was the only Senator who didn't vote on the law. Read more HERE. 
• Old McCain: In 2003 & 2004, McCain held hearings on climate change as Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. Read more HERE. 
• New McCain: In 2008, McCain flip-flopped on the bi-partisan Warner-Lieberman Climate Change Act, an aggressive piece of legislation written by Senior Republican Virginia Senator John Warner and Senior Independent Connecticut Senator Lieberman that was praised as a great step in fighting global warming.  During his campaign's "Green Tour" McCain said he would support the bill but later said he wouldn't support it. In the end, he just didn't vote at all. Read more HERE. 

On the Oil Industry ---

• Old McCain: In 2005, McCain voted against the 2005 Energy Bill which was written by Dick Cheney and old industry lobbyists behind closed doors. It gave billions in tax incentives to oil companies during their most profitable years. Read more HERE. 
• New McCain: In 2008, McCain's presidential platform includes $3.8 billion in tax breaks for the top 5 largest American oil companies. Read more HERE.  Shockingly, McCain's current "Renewable Energy" platform says he support tax subsidies until..."the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars. "  In February,  Exxon-Mobile alone set the record for the highest annual and quarterly profits in American history, do profits like that "merit taxpayers' dollars?" Read more HERE.

On the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ---

• Old McCain: In January of this year, McCain said drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was akin to drilling for oil in the Grand Canyon and the Everglades. Read more HERE.
• New McCain: In June, he said he was willing to go back and reconsider drilling in ANWR. See the video HERE. In August he reiterated his plan to reconsider his opposition to drilling in ANWR.  Read more HERE. Just two weeks ago, McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, she fully supports drilling for oil in ANWR immediately. Read more HERE. 

On Offshore Oil Drilling ---

• Old McCain: In 1999, as a presidential candidate, McCain scolded the Clinton administration for extending 36 offshore oil leaves along the California coast. He also scolded the special interests in Washington that sought offshore drilling leases. Read moreHERE. 
• New McCain: In June of this year, McCain called for the moratorium on offshore oil drilling to be lifted so oil companies could drill for oil in America's oceans. Immediately, McCain's oil industry executive campaign contributions raised from just over $200,000 in May to over $1.1 million in June. Read more HERE. 

On the League of Conservation Votes ---

• Old McCain: In 2004, McCain was endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters in his Senate Campaign. Read more HERE. 
• New McCain: In 2007, McCain received a 0% rating by the League of Conservation Voters because of his failure to vote on a single piece of environmental legislation. Now the League has endorsed his opponent, Barack Obama in the presidential election. Read more HERE.

On Keeping Your Tires Inflated --- 

• Current McCain: On August 4th, the McCain campaign handed out tire gauges to mock Obama's call to Americans to conserve gasoline by doing things like keeping tires inflated. McCain laughed at Obama's idea even though McCain supporters California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Florida Gov. Crist have recommended, along with Nascar, tire inflation for conservation. Read more HERE. 
• Current McCain: Two days later, McCain said at a town hall meeting, "Obama said a couple of days ago says we should all inflate our tires. I don't disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it." Read more HERE. 

The sad truth is that McCain has been debating McCain on environmental issues this entire campaign. He could participate in a lively and lengthy debate with himself on environmental policy for hours. It seems that when McCain is interested in exciting his base, he doesn't put "Country First."

UPDATE: Oct. 1 2008 --- Some more information sent in from reader C.M.

See "McCain Turns Back on Grand Canyon"
http://washingtonindependent.com/495/mccain-turns-back-on-grand-canyon

Good stewardship for The Grand Canyon National Park has often been touted as an example of McCain's support for the environment but real life events in the past 8 years prove the opposite.

"....There has been a recent dramatic increase in mining claims on uranium-rich federal lands adjacent to the park. And there is now growing concern that radioactive mining waste could contaminate the park and also seep into the Colorado River, which provides drinking water to more than 25 million people. While out on the hustings, McCain has been pushing his plan to build more than 100 nuclear power plants over the next 50 years, as one possible answer to U.S. dependency on foreign oil. So, it appears that, rather than trying to forge a nuclear energy policy that also protects the park and the river, McCain has opted to vanish from the controversy now raging in his home state..."

" ...McCain gave us hope that he might be a Teddy Roosevelt type of Republican,” said Roger Clark, air and water director for The Grand Canyon Trust, a Flagstaff, Ariz., environmental group. “Since the beginning of his run for president, including 2000, that has kind of crumbled.”...
--------------
Coastal & Wetlands Conservation

 McCain has expressed concern that America's "no net loss" wetlands policy is not being achieved but McCain has clearly decided he's making a big deal about drilling offshore. Louisiana has oil and gas under its marshes, and when you go in there to drill, you're bound to spill something.  McCain has also suggested that he would reconsider his past opposition to oil drilling in the coastal wetlands regions of ANWR. Extensive drilling of the type McCain advocates could do significant damage to existing the nations wetlands.
===========

A Must Read: Obama the Only Green Candidate Left

From Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times

As we emerge from Labor Day, college students are gathering back on campuses not only to start the fall semester, but also, in some cases, to vote for the first time in a presidential election. There is no bigger issue on campuses these days than environment/energy. Going into this election, I thought that — for the first time — we would have a choice between two “green” candidates. That view is no longer operative — and college students (and everyone else) need to understand that.

Read Friedman's full article HERE. 

Palin Fought Polar Bear Protections for Oil Companies

Last Friday I posted about John McCain's running mate, Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin, and her record on the environment. I knew at the time that she opposed protecting polar bears and I eventually learned she believes global warming is a myth. Now we're getting a clearer picture of just how far she is willing to go to protect oil companies and stop protections for threatened species. 

ABC News is reporting that Gov. Palin sued the Bush Administration this year to stop the listing of polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. She believed the government was too accepting of climate change science and its impact on the bears. She also feared that increasing protection for polar bears would negatively affect the oil and gas industries in Alaska.

The exact language from the Palin Administration lawsuit against the federal government stated..."Listing the polar bear as a threatened species [under the Endangered Species Act] will have a significant adverse impact on Alaska because. . . [it] will deter activities such as commercial fisheries, oil and gas exploration and development, transportation, and tourism"

The decision by the government to protect polar bears was largely based on the findings of the U.S. Geological Survey. In the Alaska lawsuit, these studies were questioned, despite the fact that Alaska's own state scientists stated that the Geological Survey's research was reliable. 

The science provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, an independent government agency, may not have been sufficient enough for Gov. Palin, but research paid for by Exxon-Mobile was. According to the ABC News article, Palin supported the conclusions of research funded by the American Petroleum Industry and Exxon, which of course did not advocate protecting polar bears from the effects of global warming. 

To read the full ABC News piece, click HERE. 

McCain's VP: Palin on the Environment

UPDATE: Gov. Palin made it clear in an interview with Newsmax magazine that she doesn't believe humans are the cause of global climate change. This is out of the mainstream of even the Republican party who includes global warming in their political platform. To read about Gov. Palin's view on global warming, click HERE.

John McCain is holding a rally today where he will announce Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate. Palin has not been in politics a very long time. She has served as Alaska's Governor for only two years and prior to that served as Mayor of a city with less than 10,000 residents. In spite of her lack of experience, she has made her positions known on a variety of environmental issues.

• Gov. Palin is pro-drilling. She supports expanded drilling in Alaska, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
• Gov. Palin opposes listing polar bears as species threatened by the effects of global climate change.
• Gov. Palin serves as the Chair for the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, which works to promote the expansion of oil and gas usage.
  
• Gov. Palin leads the National Governors Association Natural Resources Committee which is partly responsible for pushing legislation that expands oil and gas drilling in states.
  
• Gov. Palin fought federal fishery plans to protect the stellar sea lion from over fishing by the large Alaskan fishing industry.
  

Obama's VP, Joe Biden, On the Environment

Last night Senator Joe Biden of Delaware was officially nominated to serve as Vice President to Barack Obama. Biden gave a great speech, preceded by a passionate introduction by his son, Beau Biden. Joe Biden is a well liked Senator known for his straight talk and foreign affairs experience. What do we know about his support for environmental issues?

• Biden has an 83% lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters.
  
• Supports capping carbon emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
• Supports requiring 20% of America's energy coming from renewable energy sources.
  
• Supports a federal government vehicle fleet with fuel efficiency requirements of 40 miles per gallon.
  
• Supports using federal construction projects to spur investment in the green building industry.
• Supports research and investment into clean coal and carbon sequestration technologies for export to other nations. China builds a new coal power plant every week.
• Does not support lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling.
• Co-sponsored a Senate resolution calling on the U.S. to participate in U.N. climate negotiations.
  
• Co-sponsored the Boxer-Sanders Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act which establishes a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse-gas emissions.
  

To see Grist.org's full scorecard on Biden, click HERE

McCain Selling U.S. Treasures for Campaign Cash

For years, John McCain opposed additional domestic oil drilling. It is well documented (read HERE) that when he switched that position on June 16th, oil industry contributions to his campaign grew enormously. In May, McCain raised $208,000 from oil executives, in June he raised $1.1 million. Since that time he has continued to receive hefty contributions from anyone associated with the oil industry.

Its frustrating, to say the least, that McCain traded campaign contributions for America's environmental health. Apparently though, he isn't through.

One of the most protected pieces of American land is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Millions of acres in Alaska are set aside from development and human encroachment so that we can study and conserve the natural environment there. Forty-five species of land and marine mammals inhabit the area, including species of whale and bear. Native tribes live in and rely on the refuge for survival and travel.

In 2005, John McCain voted to protect ANWR from oil drilling that would bring people, machines and settlements into this pristine area. In 2008, as a Presidential candidate, he is thinking of changing his mind.

The Weekly Standard's Steven F. Hayes wrote this week that McCain told him he is reconsidering his support for protecting ANWR from oil drilling. Apparently those big oil industry checks got McCain's mouth watering at the possibility of raising more money by opening up America's most precious preserve. He is also reacting to polling that suggests the public is willing to do anything to lower the price of gasoline.

I wonder how much the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is worth to McCain. He once said drilling in ANWR is akin to drilling in the Grand Canyon. Its amazing how much can change when campaign money is involved.

Read Hayes' story from the Weekly Standard HERE.

McCain Fibs, Doesn't Support Wind Energy

Have you seen the John McCain campaign ad where he attacks Barack Obama for being a big celebrity? In the ad, McCain shows a beautiful picture of wind energy turbines turning in front of a clear blue sky. While this image is on your television, a narrator says, "Renewable energy to transform our economy, create jobs and energy independence, that's John McCain." Unfortunately, that isn't John McCain.

While John McCain has favored more tax cuts for the oil and gas industries, in addition to low interest loans and subsidies, he has opposed tax incentives for wind energy. His presidential platform on energy doesn't set aside additional funding for wind energy but only proposes to "rationalize" existing tax credits to provide incentives for it.

John McCain does set aside funding for non-renewable energy sources like nuclear and coal in his energy plan. He has designated $2 billion in annual funding for coal power plants and the construction of 45 additional nuclear plants by 2030.

A member of the wind energy industry, Frank Masiano, told Newsweek that he doesn't know what John McCain means when referring to "rationalizing the current patchwork of temporary tax credits" for wind energy development. Maisano said, "It means that they don't want to tell people what that means."

Many environmentalists are frustrated that John McCain has spent his presidential election touting offshore oil drilling, expanded coal energy and increased nuclear power plant construction all while being vague about his renewable energy plans.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has been far more specific about how he would expand renewable energy. He sets clear guidelines for the amount of renewable energy America will be using by a specific date. He also allocates $150 billion over ten years for development of clean energy sources.

To read the McCain energy plan, click HERE. To read the Obama plan, click HERE. To read Newsweek's breakdown of McCain's misleading ad, click HERE.

Why Are Oil Company Profits So High?

ExxonMobile tried to quietly release their profits from the last quarter of 2008. This is probably because they made the biggest profit of any company in American history with $11.68 billion. Shell came in second with $11.56 billion. BP made $9.5 billion, Chevron made $5.98 billion and ConocoPhillips made $5.44 billion.

At a time when oil and gas prices are hitting record highs, many Americans see the record profits posted by oil companies and wonder whether they're being robbed. The reality is that the explanation of gas prices and oil profits are so confusing that economists and even Congress has struggled to understand it.

There is one aspect of oil company profits that is simple and something we should all be concerned about. For many decades, the federal government has given billions in tax credits and subsidies to the oil industry to help them in times of financial struggle. In addition, several tax loopholes exist that allow oil companies to reduce their taxable revenues while they fail to fulfill their responsibilities.

The idea behind all of these credits, subsidies and breaks was to reduce the financial risk involved in developing new oil wells and refineries. Unfortunately, the oil companies have not developed new domestic energy sources and have instead used their huge profits to buy back billions of dollars worth of their own stock to drive up its value (Read HERE). They are also using their profits to line the pockets of executives. In 2006, the retiring CEO of ExxonMobile, Lee Raymond, was granted a $400 million retirement package (Read HERE). In 2007, Exxon's sitting CEO, Rex Tillerson, made $29.3 million in salary, bonus and stock payouts (Read HERE).

Americans should be frustrated that while they are paying record prices at the pump and gas taxes, billions in federal tax money is being given away to oil companies making record profits. The tax money isn't being spent as it was intended and is instead helping to make rich executives even richer. Ideally, these tax credits, subsidies and breaks should be tied to some expectation that must be fulfilled. Look at it this way, could you claim the child tax credit if you didn't have any kids?

Currently, John McCain is offering even more tax breaks for oil companies (read HERE). It seems that somehow the oil industry has convinced McCain that they are the victims in the energy crisis. Barack Obama is suggesting a windfall profits tax that would tax the billions made by oil companies and return that money to consumers in the form of a $1,000 rebate (read HERE).

Video: Obama on McCain's Tire-Gauge Joke

A week ago, Barack Obama made a comment about ways we can all improve the fuel efficiency of our cars. One of his suggestions was filling our cars' tires to capacity. I have suggested this on the blog in the past and I have read several automotive websites that make the same suggestion. Everyone is looking to save a few bucks on gas and be greener in the process, right?

Apparently John McCain thought this suggestion was very funny and saw it as a political opportunity, so his campaign began creating tire gauges with "Obama Energy Plan" written on them that they hand out (read about them HERE).

A joke is a joke, but shouldn't we all really be doing things like this to reduce our collective demand for foreign oil?

UPDATE: Apparently McCain was embarrassed by the response to his silly mockery of Obama's suggestion by other GOP leaders because he is slowly changing his tune...

“Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don’t disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it,” McCain said.