Hill Heat

Sen. McCain’s (R-Ariz.) running mate pick, Gov. Sarah Palin, is a proud evangelical conservative who questions anthropogenic climate change and evolution.

In January of this year, she questioned climate models that show the threat of extinction of polar bears due to the loss of sea ice:

In fact, there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future — the trigger for protection under the Endangered Species Act. . . The possible listing of a healthy species like the polar bear would be based on uncertain modeling of possible effects. This is simply not justified.

Following the decision to list polar bears as a threatened species in May, Palin chose to file suit to overturn the listing. She argued:

We believe that the Service’s decision to list the polar bear was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available.

In a Newsmax interview released today, Palin questioned the science of manmade global warming:

A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.

This position is in opposition to the global scientific community, the leaders of every nation on the planet, and her running mate.

Similarly, Palin is an advocate of teaching creationism in opposition to natural selection:

Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.

In an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, she said “I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism.”

From the Wonk Room.

At the Big Tent in Denver, Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta, Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope, and oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens engaged in a discussion about our energy future. Pickens, who believes that our global oil production is at its peak and will soon inexorably decline, discussed his “Pickens Plan” for a massive increase in wind and solar electricity production and a shift for trucking fleets from diesel to natural gas. Podesta noted that the climate crisis is evident today, in the flooding in Florida and the increasing threat of powerful hurricanes. “The cost of doing nothing,” Podesta said, “is extremely substantial.”

This panel of three highly powerful individuals from the environmental, progressive, and conservative energy industry communities represented a remarkable confluence of priorities, in recognizing the energy crisis and the need to get off oil. As Carl Pope described:

If our politics was even vaguely functional, anything that all three of us agree on would have happened long ago. We have some very deep profound political problems. Our politics are broken.

Pickens himself, a highly influential fundraiser for right-wing politicians, described how his money has gotten him access in Washington but that he had learned that his contributions don’t translate to policy. He expressed his enthusiasm for the ability of the Pickens Plan campaign to reach millions on the Internet and mobilize hundreds of thousands of people. He argued, “I’m not doing this to make money. My entire estate will go to charity when I go. We are now importing almost 70 percent of our oil. It’s too much. We’re not talking about my generation—we can make it to the finish line.”

Pope explained what Newt Gingrich and other conservatives are really trying to do with their drill-drill-drill agenda, when they know that lifting the offshore drilling moratorium won’t deliver new oil to this country.

What is it about? It’s about distracting us from the conversation we ought to be having. As long as we’re talking about drill drill drill, it distracts Americans from the fact there’s a chasm between the two candidates. It’s a huge headfake by Karl Rove.

At the end of the conversation, Podesta and Pickens talked about their political differences. Pickens – who helped sponsor the Big Tent – admitted he is inclined to defend oil companies, who work for their shareholders and are run by his friends. When challenged by Podesta for having given significant contributions to “the gang on Capitol Hill who have been blocking the renewable production tax credit,” Pickens, with resignation apparent in his face, said, “I grind on them . . . I don’t have the time.” He argued that he is now trying to act on behalf of the American people, to avoid being partisan, to move past the old politics—the politics that he has spent millions to sustain.

The Politico’s Jeanne Cummings reports that the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is spending $2 million at the Democratic National Convention on billboards and street teams to promote the coal industry:

The Democrats are mighty proud of the “greening” of their convention. Recycling will be celebrated, as will bicycling and a whole host of other environmentally sound practices.

Amid the glow from all that global warming warfare enters the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. Yep, those fellows have got guts.

The coal coalition, a nemesis to many environmentalists, plans to spend $2 million on advertising in and around the Denver convention venues, promoting the virtues of clean coal.

It will also be doing “experiential advertising,” meaning the group will put people on the streets to actually talk to conventioneers about the role coal could play in future energy policy.

The street teams will also be handing out city maps with blurbs inserted about the importance of the coal-based electricity industry and ongoing research into capturing and storing carbon emissions from those plants.

“We started this conversation with policymakers and the American public in 2000,” said Joe Lucas, the coalition’s vice president of communications. “We’ve significantly turned up the volume on that conversation in the last year.”

And the coalition figured, what better place to go to continue that conversation than at the conventions?

In billboards and other ads, the coalition will argue that the coal-based electricity industry can help keep jobs at home, reduce costs for consumers and — with more research — find its own tidy spot in an environmentally cleaner energy future.

“Clean coal means the next president won’t have to choose between the economy and the environment,” concluded Lucas, adding that both Barack Obama and John McCain already see coal in the nation’s future energy industry.

This will be the coalition’s first appearance at the two political conventions. But Denver is clearly the group’s best shot at a breakthrough moment.

From the Wonk Room.

The National Wildlife Federation, which has been warning that global warming is worsening wildfires and floods, describes the triple threat of global warming-fueled tropical storms in a new report:

While Florida and Gulf Coast residents bear the brunt of Tropical Storm Fay, the latest science connecting hurricanes and global warming suggests more is yet to come: tropical storms are likely to bring higher wind speeds, more precipitation, and bigger storm surge in the coming decades.

Watch it:

As Dr. Staudt writes in the report, “Stronger hurricanes, heavier rainfall, and rising sea level: this is what global warming has in store for the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic coasts.”

A report from the Public Campaign Action Fund on 2008 spending by oil and coal industries finds that they are on track to spend about one billion dollars this year on lobbying, political contributions, and advertising. The full report amasses the following expenditures:

2008 SPENDING BY OIL AND COAL INTERESTS, BY CATEGORY
Amounts in millions	Coal/Electric Utilities	Oil/Gas	Total
Political Contributions	$16.5	$20.9	$37.4
Lobbying Expenditures	73.7	55.3	129.0
Paid Media	7.4	201.2	208.6
Other Political Spending	40.0	12.2	52.2
Total	$137.6	$289.6	$427.2

Lobbying expenditures and political contributions come from Center for Responsive Politics data compiled from public disclosures. Paid media figures are from TNS Media Intelligence, the industry standard for tracking media spending.

The “other political spending” comes from the coal industry group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices / American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ABEC/ACCCE) and from Newt Gingrich’s 527 corporation, American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF).

Hill Heat will be adding relevant events at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions to its listings, including The New Republic’s “Future of Environmentalism” series (interestingly only with wealthy white men) and the Rocky Mountain Roundtable’s Energy and Climate series, which features a keynote by Sir Nicholas Stern. (Times are local.)

At the beginning of the month, five Republican senators and five Democratic senators unveiled an energy package that increases offshore drilling and coal-to-liquids, as well has rolling back some oil industry subsidies in favor of renewable tax breaks.

Leading the group are Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). The other members of the group: Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). Pryor, Landrieu, Thune, and Graham are up for reelection; Graham is a close associate of Republican presidential nominee John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Provisions of the bill, as described by E&E News:

• Offshore drilling. The drilling provisions would open up large swaths of new acreage in the eastern Gulf of Mexico to new oil-and-gas drilling. Current law provides a 125-mile buffer for Florida in most areas; the proposal would shrink the no-drill zone to 50 miles. It would also allow drilling in federal waters in the Atlantic off the coasts of four Southeastern states – Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia – if the states allow it. The states would share in some revenue if they allow leasing.
• Oil subsidy repeal. Total funding for the proposal’s various energy programs is $84 billion—$30 billion of this would come from oil companies, according to a summary circulated today.

  The oil industry revenues would come in part from repeal of major oil companies’ ability to claim the Section 199 domestic manufacturing credit and provisions to ensure federal revenues from flawed late 1990s deep-water gulf leases that currently allow royalty waivers regardless of energy prices.

• $20 billion automotive incentives. The conservation and alternative fuels provisions include $20 billion for an “Apollo Project” aimed at weaning 85 percent of America’s motor vehicles from oil-based fuels in 20 years. The program would include research and development in areas like advanced batteries and funding to help automakers re-tool to make alternative fuel vehicles. Also in the mix are tax credits of up to $7,500 per vehicle for consumers who buy cars that run primarily on non-petroleum fuels.
• Four-year clean credit extension. The proposal would also extend a suite of renewable energy credits – for wind, solar and other projects – and energy efficiency credits through 2012. Current renewable power production and investment tax credits are set to expire at year’s end, and the industry has been pressing for multi-year extensions to provide “certainty” to the market.
• New incentives. Elsewhere, the bill includes new tax credits for highly efficient vehicles and $2.5 billion in funding for development and demonstration of next-generation biofuels and infrastructure, among the suite of conservation and renewable energy provisions.
• Coal-to-liquids and nuclear. In addition to the drilling measures, the bill offers grants and loan guarantees for building coal-to-liquids plants capable of capturing carbon dioxide emissions. It also contains provisions to expand domestic nuclear power, such as increasing staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission – which has begun receiving the first applications to build new reactors in decades – as well as work force training.

From the Associated Press:

A Bush administration proposal that would eliminate the input of independent government scientists in some endangered species reviews would be tossed out if Democrat Barack Obama wins the White House, his campaign says.

“This 11th-hour ruling from the Bush administration is highly problematic. After over 30 years of successfully protecting our nation’s most endangered wildlife like the bald eagle, we should be looking for ways to improve it, not weaken it,” said Obama campaign spokesman Nick Shapiro. “As president, Senator Obama will fight to maintain the strong protections of the Endangered Species Act and undo this proposal from President Bush.”

A spokesman for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, said he had no comment on Bush’s revisions.

The Associated Press reported Monday details of a proposal by the Interior and Commerce departments that would change how the 1973 law is implemented, allowing federal agencies to decide for themselves — without seeking the opinions of government wildlife experts — whether dams, highways and other projects have the potential to harm endangered species and habitats.

Current law requires federal agencies to consult with experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service if a project poses so much as a remote risk to species or habitats.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne defended the changes in a call with reporters Monday, calling them narrow modifications to make the law more clear and efficient.

In recent years, both federal agencies and developers have complained that the reviews, which can result in changes to projects that better protect species, have delayed work and increased costs.

The proposed regulations, which will be published Thursday in the Federal Register, included one significant change from the earlier draft: The public comment period was cut in half, from 60 to 30 days.

“In this case, it was determined that we need to move forward in a timely fashion,” said Interior Department spokeswoman Tina Kreisher.

If the proposal should become final by November, a new administration could propose another rule, a process that could take months. Congress could also pass legislation, but that could take even longer.

An aide for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said that panel would hold a hearing on the rule changes when Congress returns in September.

The League of Women Voters is calling for a moratorium on all new coal plants. In the words of national League President Mary G. Wilson, “Global warming is happening now.” She argues that Congress is failing its mission:

If we wait for federal action from our congressional leaders, it will be too late. We must take immediate and aggressive action to halt climate change. Burning more coal is too big a risk for too many people. Coal is the single largest source of global warming pollution in the U.S., with power plants responsible for 33 percent of CO2 emissions. Because of this pollution, we already face increasingly severe heat waves and droughts, intensifying hurricanes and floods, disappearing glaciers and more wildfires. If left unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic to us and our planet.

In a letter addressed to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, the presidents of four unions representing career EPA scientists write of their collective dismay at Johnson’s handling of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on greenhouse gas emissions. Johnson criticized his own agency’s work, calling the Clean Air Act “ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases.” In addition, letters of comment criticizing the rulemaking draft were attached from the White House Office of Management and Budget, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Small Business Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Energy.

This July 30 letter, published by Publice Employees for Environmental Responsibility, reveals that the EPA staff were not allowed to review these letters of criticism before they were prepended to the ANPR. The union presidents write:

“The way in which you subverted the work of EPA staff in your preamble statement on the merits of the supporting rationale for the ANPRM was as unprecedented as it was stunning to your staff and damaging to EPA’s reputation for sound science and policy.”

They conclude: “We hope that in your final days in office you will try to rectify some of this damage and remove some of the tarnish from your legacy.”

Full text:

It is in the spirit of partnership between EPA workers and managers toward fulfilling the Agency’s mission that we address this letter to you.

We write on behalf of the EPA employees that we represent to express our collective dismay over the way in which the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), “Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act,” was presented for public comment.

The way in which you subverted the work of EPA staff in your preamble statement on the merits of the supporting rationale for the ANPRM was as unprecedented as it was stunning to your staff and damaging to EPA’s reputation for sound science and policy. And the fact that EPA’s experts who worked on this ANPRM were not given the opportunity to read or address the adverse comments of OMB, USDA, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, and the Department of Transportation in advance of the ANPRM publication is troubling and, quite frankly, unprofessional. We believe that EPA’s hardworking, dedicated staff has earned more respect than you are giving. It makes your public and private pronouncements of thanks to EPA staff ring hollow. We would ask you to allow these EPA experts to submit responses to these agency submissions as part of the ANPRM public comment process.

The decision to publish the critiques of other agencies in the name of “transparency” in decision-making is both disingenuous and counterproductive. A far more direct contribution would be made to the credibility and transparency of EPA decision-making if you cooperated with congressional requests for documents and hearings. The professional staff of EPA has nothing to hide. In fact, contrary to your assertions of executive privilege, the free flow of policy recommendations would be aided by opening up all (not just selected) communications to public scrutiny.

Based on the media-covered responses to the ANPRM in the Wall Street Journal 1 and from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s William Kovacs2, EPA is being portrayed as foolish and dictatorial. Your action has lent support to critics like those above and the indicted former Congressman Tom Delay who characterize EPA’s civil servants – who are sworn to duty and charged with helping to protect the environment – as virtual enemies of the United States, an outrage that is unacceptable. We fear your action may make it more difficult for EPA and your successor, whether he or she takes office in January or before, to act decisively to protect the environment and public health. Without the public’s respect and support, EPA’s work to implement the environmental laws of our nation is jeopardized. The silence from your office in the face of such calumny and your failure to come to the Agency’s defense, wounds us far more than the ranting of Delay, Kovacs and the Wall Street Journal.

You were once one of us. We were proud when you were nominated as the first of us to occupy the Administrator’s Office, and we expected great things. Our disappointment is profound. We hope that in your final days in office you will try to rectify some of this damage and remove some of the tarnish from your legacy.