Sen. Inhofe was right?

Did I really write that? That Sen. James Inhofe, über climate denier was right about something? I guess that I did, and as much as I hate to admit it, his criticism of climate change science has an element of truth in it… though not exactly as he intended.

Faced with an unrelenting attack from those who would profit from the continuation of our energy status quo, many scientists have under reported their findings, emphasized the low end of their estimates of the rate of climate change and, in fact, have just plain missed some of the data. The problem for Sen. Inhofe is that the direction of their error is just the opposite from that which he proclaims.

As reported in just the last week, scientists completely missed the effects of a warming climate on the East Antarctic ice sheet. While that is a long distance away and most of us will never go there, we will all have to deal with an ocean that is rising faster and will rise higher given our general tendency to do nothing until trouble hits like a Hurricane Katrina, full of intensity, overwhelming our resources and easily managed had we only done what we should have.

This is the effect that Inhofe and his ilk have had. We had concrete evidence of that effect in April, when the U.K. Guardian published this.

Far from over-playing their hand to swell their research coffers, scientists have been toning down their message in an attempt to avoid public despair and inaction.

So we have been lulled into inaction, fueled by a sense that there is always time enough to act and an arrogance about our own technological capabilities. Now we let the half-truthers warn us of catastrophe fatigue while they hope that we just sit down and shut up.

We we are not going to sit down and shut up. And the scientists are becoming more forceful, as noted on Yale Univ.'s Environment 360 blog today.

Ahead of talks in Copenhagen, a group of leading climate scientists has issued a new report summarizing the most recent research findings from around the world and concluding that scientists have underestimated the pace and extent of global warming.

For California, perhaps the most important effect is the under-estimation of sea level rise. That will be the subject of a subsequent post, since it tears at the very fabric of the recently passed water legislation in California. Suffice it to say that the bond issue is already out of date before it is even put to a vote.

If Greens are to be relevant in the determination of our future, then Greens need to increase our level of participation in all aspects of the climate debate and to become leaders in climate action. The time has passed when only polite reasoned debated will carry the day and save mankind. Let's take this to the streets with the same intensity that we have done over the Iraq War. The moral issues, the ecological justice questions are of a scope that far exceed anything that we thought about Bush's folly. We are not referring to the thousands who died by the action of the US, but of the millions who will die due to the inaction of the US and moral hypocrisy of U.S. Senators like Inhofe.

Isn't there a law?

When you get to be a member of Congress, you now have dispensation to say anything you want with no regard for it's factual content, and then use tax payer money to publish it for all to see.

Case in point: Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) get a lot of free press with his fact deficient rants against the idea of climate change actually taking place. However, since the Republicans do not control the Senate Committees, he can not to everything as he pleases. However, that does not stop him from trying, as the minority party also gets a chance to put a "minority opinion" statement on the committee's web site. Since Inhofe is the ranking member of the Environments and Public Works Committee, he controls what gets posted.

The most idiotic is the statement at the infamous paper of lobbyist Marc Marano entitled "More Than 700 (Previously 650) International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims". This has been debunked again and again. Many of those who were named, have been shocked to see their position so grossly misrepresented. Still, Inhofe puts it out there for all to see and you, my fellow tax payers, are paying for it… in more ways than one.

I wish that there was a way to get at a Senator who intentionally uses tax payers money to spread a convenient lie. Aren't Republicans supposed to be for reigning in wasteful spending. Well, they ought to start here, unless they are all foot soldiers in the Republican War on Science.

Hell,I lived in Inhofe's Tulsa and he wasn't even a good mayor.

So what, you ask? Well what should the Green Party do to specifically address the fact that The War on Science has turned into a War on our Children. We gotta care more than it appears.

Mark Twain never met Senator Inhofe.

Mark Twain and Senator James Inhofe lived in different eras and so never met. However, Twain would have recognized him immediately. Twain wrote:

The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might. San Francisco Alta California, June 16, 1867

So we now have Senator Inhofe declaring victory over Al Gore, George Soros, Barbara Streisand and all those who support the idea of Global Warming.

I have in front of me just what’s happened this month in terms of the scientists that are coming over that used to be on the other side and have now become skeptics. And it’s overwhelming. The 650 scientists, and I quoted many of them, in fact, most of those are on my website. But I really think it’s important, first of all, for people to understand where the science is on this. Then understand where the money is. I mean, this whole thing started, like a lot of bad things in my narrow view, with the United Nations. And then of course Hollywood got ahold of it, and MoveOn.org and Barbara Streisand and George Soros and the rest of them. So, it became a huge money thing.

That "I have in front of me" phrase echos of another Senator with a penchant for lying, Joseph McCarthy. I remember listening to the hearings with McCarthy screaming about his list of Communists in government. They had about the same reality as Sen. Inhofe's list of 650 Scientists. Must we suffer through this again? Where is the new Murrow? He obviously no longer resides at CBS or 60 Minutes would be doing a number on another Senator.

De-addnex Oklahoma?

The history of the State of Oklahoma is essentially the story of the marginalization of the Indian population of the United States and then the seizure of those lands to further the expansion of white America and the 19th Century rush to exploit nature for all it could provide: land for farming, ranching and most of all for oil. The Cherokee, moved over the Trail of Tears from Georgia to Oklahoma were only the most well known of many tragic exploitations.

Exploitation is still the goal of Oklahoma, as one can gather from this short clip of Sen. James Inhofe in a session of the Senate Committee Environment and Public Works, Chaired by California's Barbara Boxer.

It seems that the rest of the nation has moved beyond the pompous self-indulgent, might I use the word rapacious, resource exploitation of the 19th Century, but that the State of Oklahoma has not. It continues to elect, and re-elect such as Sen. Inhofe. Perhaps it is time that we consider de-annexing the State of Oklahoma and returning it to the rule of the Indian tribes that still live there.

PS: To my politically correct Green friends, I used the term "Indian" as a number of my "Native American" friend have used that term to describe themselves, as in the name of this important publication: Indian Country Today.

The Great Climate Change Hoax

The word hoax has been firmly associated with global climate change ever since Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe started to use it, calling climate change the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Only he got it wrong… again.

The great hoax is that Sen. Inhofe understands climate, understands science and is moral enough to tell the truth. For all the clamor, for all the barbs thrown at everyone who does not agree with ex-Mayor of Tulsa, there has yet to be any science put forward that explains the observations that we have. They have no theory. They have no facts. So, being the professional politician that he is, Ihofe can only attack the measurements, the numbers were fudged, the scientists cheated, etc., etc. It becomes a conspiracy that requires more suspension of disbelief than about any other. The number who had to be in the know about Kennedy's assignation is small. Maybe the 911 Truthers need to account for a few more. But this requires the secret collaboration of tens of thousands of scientists. Preposterous.

The Architecture of Change

In February, 2007, I watched a televised teach-in sponsored by the American Institute of Architects and the New York Academy of Science. The speakers included Dr. James Hansen of NS.S.A. and Dr. Ed Mazria, a member of A.I.A. and the founder of a non-profit called Architecture 2030.

While all of the section are informative, I was particularly impressed by Dr. Mazria's presentation and the 2010 Imperative that his organization is championing. Here is the simple truth, known then and still valid. You can not solve the problems of climate change without addressing the building sector. If you do take on the building sector, then many of the other diminish in scale and the time frame to finish the job becomes much more manageable.

The title of Dr. Mazria's talk was Resuscitating a Dying Society. His original proposal was to get strong backing for what he called the 2010 Imperative. Many people listened, but few acted. Had they done so, I don't think we would be facing the possibility of a failure in Copenhagen. Had they done so, we would not have had to listen to the Palin-ites chanting "Drill, baby, Drill."

Now, however, more and more architecture firms are taking up the challenge. I quote from an Architecture 2030 release date Sept. 28, 2009. (2010 will soon be here.)

Building Sector Leaders Call for
Steep Energy and Emissions Cuts

SANTA FE, NM - Twenty-four of the largest and most influential architecture, engineering, and development firms based in the U.S., which are responsible for a combined $100 billion in building construction annually, have joined forces with Architecture 2030, a leading non-profit research organization, to call on Congress to update national building code standards to meet steep and achievable energy reduction targets.

Specifically, this group is pressing the Senate to pass the building energy reduction targets in Section 241 of the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S. 1462) and incorporate timelines to reach carbon-neutral buildings by 2030.

Now we know what the Republican response will be: Lie, obfuscate, delay until it is too late. The leader of the charge is Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. The initial Press announcement has already been made. A major chance was missed when OK failed to replace him in 2008.

So, here is the next challenge, for those who believe in thinking globally and acting locally. Attend the next meeting of your local planning commission and demand that they only approve projects where the architecture meets the standard laid down by Architecture 2030, that the Cities where you live only deal with architecture firms who have signed on like those listed.

This is not for you and me. It is to resuscitate a dying society for our children and grand children until the 7th Generation.

Why ask a Green to wear Blue on Earth Day?

That is what I thought to myself when I got the following yesterday from Peter Chapman, Marketing Coordinator, 2030, Inc. / Architecture 2030.

Hello Wesley,

I want to thank you for following our work at Architecture 2030 through your posts at Daily Kos, California Greening and Grist last year.

Well, at least Peter did some research, or let Google do it for him, but I think that he missed a couple, like Green Commons and Andrew Nevkin's dot earth blog at the NY Times. The note from Peter was more than a request to wear blue. It was all tied to the rest of Architecture 2030's agenda. So, I followed the link from Peter's note to BYOBlue.org.

At least, it was not Democratic Party Blue, nor even Yves Klein Blue, though the latter is close. It is more like that of the Blue Man Group who did the warm up for the most recent Architecture 2030 webcast: Face It.

The connection is rather obvious: no more coal means a bluer sky. Got that. It also means a future where climate change reverts to normal cycles. Got that too. Actually, they have put together a pretty good campaign. So, what to they really want us to do?

First, wearing blue for an Earth Day event is taking on a tone of protest, not against Earth Day, but rather against the way that we are changing our atmosphere but not changing our energy policies.

Want to stop global warming? Wear BLUE for Earth Day 2008! Join millions of people around the world who will be wearing BLUE to signify their vote for NO COAL

OK, got it. but isn't there more? Well yes there is.

Then, on April 22, make your voice heard. Pick up the phone: Call Congress at 202.224.3121 and demand an immediate ‘Moratorium on Coal’ - a halt to the construction of any new coal-fired power plants. Through this Call for Climate event, Earth Day hopes to generate over a million phone calls to Congress!

Now, I am really getting it. It is obvious that the connection of the Democratic Party, their reliance on votes from key coal producing state (PA, WV, IL) will make it very difficult for either Clinton or Obama to do anything that will substantially solve the problem. Maybe, just maybe, enough call on April 22 will help get someone's attention. Let's hope that Pennsylvanians get the message and make the call, because that is Primary Day for the Democratic Party.

It also follows the proposed Science Debates 2008, to be held at the Franklin Mint in PA on April 18. McCain, Clinton and Barama invited... none have accepted.

The attention that we have given to the subject of coal is already having some effect.

Fifty-nine coal plants were canceled in 2007. That’s over a third of the 151 plannned. That happened before millions of people joined together to say No Coal. Source: Architecture 2030.

So, here is the to do list:

• Wear Blue
• Call in
• Vote Green

Peter forgot the last item there, but if you read what Obama and Clinton are saying, they are not going to "stop coal." Big Business won't let them and we know what big business thinks, or we should after listening to GE CEO James Immelt (not to be confused with James Inhofe) was reported at Grist as referencing Coal this way.

If business doesn't take a seat at the table, regs will be determined by politicians and activists (some of which, he said with evident horror, want to do away with coal entirely!). USCAP may not be perfect, but it replaced a vacuum.

In fact, none of the major party candidate, not McCain nor Clinton nor Obama come close to matching the understanding of what it really means to tackle Global Warming. Instead, you have to look to Kent Mesplay, for whom I voted in the CA Primary, or Jesse Johnson, two Green Party candidates who don't need to coached on this issue.

So Celebrate Earth Day, you all know how now.

7th Generation Revisited

The first 2009 issue of my home town newspaper, the Morgan Hill Times, had another of my columns. The subject was global warming and the 7th Generation Amendment. Click Read more! to read it here.. or go to the MH Times site.



Having the opportunity to write one of the first columns of 2009 is a privilege. It gives me the mental stimulus to think seriously about what I have to accomplish during the next year. The result is something of a list of topics rather than a coherent statement, but at some level it should make sense.

I spent much of Sunday moving a pineapple guava from a location where it got neither enough sun nor water to produce good fruit. By the time I finished, I was wondering why I even started the task. But then I came in and ate some roast beef with a pineapple guava chutney and I knew why.

There is nothing quite as good as the food you grow yourself. You know it is fresh. You know it is organic. You know it was ripe when picked rather than being picked green, shipped halfway across the country and allowed to ripen enroute.

My work with the EcoAction Committee of the Green Party this year has given me the impetus to spend more time than most on some issues, such as global warming. I guess that I was naive about just how much disinformation is promulgated by those in office.

One source of much obvious mis-information is Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe who is the ranking member of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee. He continues to proclaim that "More than 650 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims" even though many of the names on that list have publicly demanded that he take their names off of it.

In other words, the man has no regard for truth or ethical conduct. It is embarrassing that he should have been re-elected.

It is possible that global warming is the most serious problem facing the world today. I would certainly put it far ahead of most of what we see as news on television.

Yet, we continue to get "on one hand or on the other hand" treatment of the issue, as if facts had two hands.

We can choose to act in whatever way we can or we can choose to ignore the issue.

We don't have to deal with the consequences now … but our children and grandchildren will.

I have also become convinced, mostly by hard facts, that there is not necessary antagonism between ecological sustainability and economic sustainability.

According to a study published recently by McKinsey Global Institute, the net economic cost to stabilize our climate is near zero.

The rhetoric to the contrary is always put forward by those who would rather sell you something than fix a problem.

Having gone through all of the above; developing our orchard, investigating global warming, checking the facts on the economy, studying the water problems that California can not seem to resolve, I have become convinced that we must treat some resources as part of the commons, owned by all.

I came to know of a man named Walt Bressette. A friend of mine knew him. Walt was a leader in the Chippewa spearing rights controversy in Wisconsin. My friend found him to be " … a wise, humorous, visionary man who was able to see through political baloney and get to the heart of situations."

Walt was also the head of a committee dedicated to enacting the 7th Generation Amendment to the Constitution. It makes a lot of sense to me.

"The right of citizens of the United States to use and enjoy air, water, wildlife, and other renewable resources determined by the Congress to be common property shall not be impaired, nor shall such use impair their availability for the use of future generations."

We use the the air every day … We change it by that use and, in doing so, we endanger the very life we would pass on to our posterity. Our Constitution would "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Somehow, we have forgotten that the blessings of our liberty includes the land in which we live, the air we breath, the water we use.

During the coming year, members of the Green Party will work to make the 7th Generation Amendment a reality. I ask you to join us in this.

Carbon Cycle

The Carbon Cycle is not some new exotic mountain bike. Still, like a mountain bike in rough terrain, we are headed for a wild ride if we don't know what we are doing... and there is plenty of evidence that we don't.


Eric Roston's new book, The Carbon Age, gives a chilling story of why the carbon cycle is at the center of everything. His carefully chosen subtitle is How Life's core element has become civilization's greatest threat. I would recommend this book to everyone who is not convinced of the danger's of greenhouse gas accelerated global warming and who has an open mind.

If you can be convinced, this book will do it in such detail that you wonder what the professional deniers, especially politicians like Sen. James Inhofe (D. OK) or Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R. CA) are going. They pass themselves off as intelligent, educated people and so must really have decided that they don't really want to know anything about science and the future.

While I am disappointed in the role that politicians are playing, as they run their messages through focus groups looking for the words that will get themselves elected, as they talk about global warming and build their candidacies on policies that can only make matters worse, I am even more disappointed in the 4th Estate, a press that allows them to get away with it.

Here one good example of what I am talking about:

August 13, 2008. KGO-TV (ABC in San Francisco) based their story on a poll that examined the impact that the price of gas is having on Bay Area families. While that is news-worthy, they have obviously not gone beyond soliciting responses to this very particular question.

Responsible journalism would also give consideration to the well established fact that there is a connection between gasoline usage (as well as other combustion source) and the changes we are seeing in climate, changes that are lightning quick in terms of geological time. But that was not the story.

However, if you read the comments made by those responding to the poll you might see why the Democrats are in such a quandary over energy policy. I need only quote one.

It's time to tell the 'environmentalists' to SHUT UP and use our natural resources. As long as we're dependent on foreign oil we're going to have this problem. We have the oil; let's use it. Also- car manufacturers should make cars more efficient.

The public is obviously not getting the real message. This commenter seems to believe that the US have enough oil to solve the gasoline problem, (We don't.) or that setting up a program to drill offshore or in the Arctic will pay immediate benefits. (It won't.) Some, maybe those who would bother to read Roston's book, understand just how precarious our situation is, but only those who already understand would be likely to read The Carbon Age.

I want to see our media start connecting the dots... transportation to global warming to the question of gasoline prices and drilling for more oil. Maybe, we need our newspapers to start asserting themselves with a dose of truth. Tell it like it is, not like the public wants it to be.

I wonder how the survey results would have changed had they asked this question. If you knew that increasing the supply of petroleum now would cost America $3 Trillion to mitigate the effects of global warming that it will cause, would that change your position? Of course, with Exxon-Mobil sponsoring convention coverage we should not expect aggressive television journalism or the truth from politicians.

There are many small decisions being made every day and the tyranny of those decisions will be devastating.

Near the end of The Carbon Age, Roston asks us to imagine a not so distant future.

...forty years from now some of those Americans living a lower quality of life may wonder about the generation that knew they had it all and set decline in motion, unfazed. Ours will be a generation of narcissism. Each of us is competitive with Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned, frittering away time on bread and circuses. Each of us is Tsar Nicholas II, whose attention to traumatic personal circumstances -- am ill son -- distracted him form his empire, crumbling toward what would become the Soviet dictatorship. The climate debates stands at an analogous point. There is still hope that industrialized nations can transfer civilization on to an energy system that will not scorch the earth.

PG&E Withdraws from US Chamber over Climate Change

Pacific Gas and Electric has created a major stir by its very public withdrawal from membership in the US Chamber of Commerce and condemnation of the Chamber's position regarding climate change. The announcement on Tuesday has been picked up and repeated by every serious climate related web site.

My reactions were submitted as a Green Talk column to my very local paper this AM and are scheduled to appear on Friday. You can read them now by clicking Read more.


The withdrawal came in a letter from PG&E Chairman Peter Darbee to the Chamber of Commerce, a portion of which appears on the PG&E web site. “We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another.”

PG&E is not the first major corporation, nor even the first utility, to make such public withdrawal. Duke Energy has withdrawn from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy over that organization's opposition to climate change legislation. Some have even begun to advertise their actions, as S. C. Johnson has done, highlighting the fact that they have sought clean power for their manufacturing plants or Subaru with their zero-landfill automotive manufacturing plant in Indiana. They have found that these are good business decisions, not just publicity stunts.

Time after time we have seen national organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce take ideological positions that are at odds with facts and in doing so reflect a disdain for even the well being of their own membership.

Mis-information abounds, takes on a life of it's own and is repeated so often as fact that the original sources are so far down the trail of citings that they might never be found. Politicians, those who most loudly claim to have only the interests of their constituents at heart, allow their staffs to make up stories as long as they remain true to the ideology, never mind the facts. No one is worse at this than Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe whose previous chief of staff, Mark Marano, is now becoming the guru of climate change denial. The good Senator's mind has long been made up and facts will not change it.

Sadly, we have come to expect this of politicians. But, it has also entered the realm of journalism where the object lesson in non-objective writing is surely George Will and his blatantly erroneous columns on climate in the Washington Post. Not to be outdone, even the venerable NY Times falls for a similar trap, coming from their in-house climate maven, Andrew Revkin.

Revkin, in writing about the UN Climate Change Conference held Tuesday, was at best mis-leading when stating that the temperature has been comparatively stable for a decade. What he did not mention was that it was still the warmest decade on record. It is so easy to pick the facts to suite your explanation rather than making sure that your explanation fits the entire set of facts that we have, so far, discovered.

It would appear as if many expect the universe to be swayed by their ideological interpretations, much as they expect voters to react, to fall in line as soon as they trot out a litany of focus-group refined slogans. I wonder how many molecules of methane they had in their focus group.

It seems clear to me that the universe does not care about, is not swayed by, does not change it's course because of some senator's ideology. The world is what it is and seems rather immune to what we think. It is not, however, immune to what we do. Just as words have meaning, actions have consequences. So far, the actions of mankind have not generally been benign with regards to maintaining any ecological balance.

I could speculate as to how PG&E's actions will work out at the local level. When I was a member of the Morgan Hill Chamber of Commerce, one of the major corporations involved was PG&E. The Morgan Hill Chamber also has a good history of working with the City and other organizations toward creating a green business environment. I would hope that this continues, along with the assistance of PG&E.

This is the way that the world should work, but unfortunately does not. When we have local businesses making decisions to manage their business in such a manner as to work with the local ecology rather than against it we will probably have better outcomes, not only for the business but also for the entire world. That is not easy to do. It takes commitment, work and an open mind. There are a lot of people willing to do the hard work, but far fewer who maintain an open mind.

The Polar Bear is getting hot

While I normally do not respond well to publicity stunt political action, sometimes they are so spot on that you can only stand up and cheer. In this case Green Party Eco-Action Committee member Jean McMahon takes to spotlight as she dogs Okla. Senator (and well known global warming denier) James Inhofe. The full story is at the Tulsa World.

I note that this is starting to have some legs, as science journalist / blogger Chris Mooney has picked up the same thing.

Go get'em, Ms. Bear.

Coal runs America... into the ground.

If you know much at all about the political strength of the coal industry, this article in the Phoenix Sun will not surprise you, but is till worth the read to reinforce the knowledge that a blatant 19th Century Robber Baron mentality that is still at work in the US, wrapped in the American Flag.

If you have not paid any attention to this, then it is all the more reason for your to spend some time thinking about the ramifications of Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship addressing a rally in his red, white and blue shirt and introducing pro-coal coloring books into the curriculum for West Virginia's elementary school children.

Several years ago, David Cobb wrote an OpEd for the Eureka Times Standard, commenting on a right wingnut speaker named Holly Swanson whose day job was going around the country railing at all things good and Green. I quote:

Approximately 60 folks attended to hear a diatribe that included an allegation that the Green Party was engaged in a concerted effort to “brainwash” children to respect the earth. Swanson went so far as to accuse the Greens of being just like the Nazi Party of fascist Germany.

Doesn't that sound just like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck today, or the tea bagger venting their wrath on Obama as their target of opportunity.

So, here is a big cheer to Dana Silvernail who actually may be Holly Swanson's worst nightmare, a Green who actually won a seat the board of the Northern Humboldt Union High School District. As I wrote in a congratulatory note to Dana, "All you need to do is have students who respect the truth."

The Phoenix Sun article concludes:
> If you want to stay up-to-date with news on the coal front, you’re in luck. Ken Ward, Jr., the dean of American coal reporters, writes a blog for the Charleston (WV) Gazette called The Coal Tattoo. Read it and weep. And then organize.
I keep up to date by following @Jenwardjr on Twitter.

We don't think much about coal in California. The mines we once had (Parkfield, for example) have long since been abandoned. But we do need to think about where this country is headed and how very effective Coal is at controlling what we do. For example, did you know the the Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, Nick Rahall, represents the 3rd District of West Virgina which is truly ground zero for mountain top removal mining. You wonder why we can't get anything done?

You may also wonder why the Democrats are so hesitant to push for a climate change bill, or that the bill currently under consideration in the Senate - known as Kerry-Boxer - has so much provision for the future use of coal? Well, both of the Senators from WV, Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller, are Dems and taking away their votes would make sure that an Republican filibuster, already promised by Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, would be sustained.

I agree with the Phoenix Sun, Read this and weep. Weep for the mountains that will never be again. Weep for the citizens of Rahall's district who have no other options, whose one last public opportunity to change Coal River Mountain from a toxic cleanup site into a jobs and energy producing windcatcher has been blasted away. Then organize. If you can do nothing else, the next time you feel like a cup of coffee or a soft drink, take the money you would have spent and donate it to the West Virginia Mountain Party.

When will they ever learn

When I was growing up in Arizona, two of our political leaders were Steward Udall and Barry Goldwater. While they differed on most things, they both had a basic understanding of the relationship of man to nature. Goldwater was a conservative who understood the conservative and conservation have the same derivation.

Goldwater was a very conservative Republican. It was the Republican party of Pete McCloskey and Lincoln Chaffee (RI) both of whom have strong environmental credentials and both of whom have left the Republican Party. It is a very different Republican Party from the one that I new and the fact that McCloskey and Chaffee have both left is a sign of just how far it has changed.

Today, the California Republican Party is filled with the likes of Bill Maze and Tom McClintock. They are a different breed all together. They have none of the vision that earned McCloskey appointment as Co-Chair of the very first Earth Day.

I note today that Maze has been meeting with Inyo County Supervisors to urge their support for Schwarzeneggers $9 Billion dubious project for new dams, new canals and little gain. In Maze's view,

Unfortunately, the state’s current water storage systems are at capacity and simply cannot be relied upon to provide enough water to meet growing demand from increased population, industry and agriculture, he said. Only new dams and reservoirs and added groundwater recharge can add to the state’s water supplies.
“But some people just don’t get it.”

That is in stark contrast to the view of Dorothy Green in a recent LA Times Op Ed.

For all the doom and gloom about water in California, here's a surprising truth: California has enough water to meet its needs today and tomorrow without new dams, peripheral canals or catastrophic costs. But there is a rub. It will take political will and better management.

Maybe Maze is the one who just doesn't get it.

McClintock, on the other hand, appears not to "get it" about global warming. In a speech before the Western Conservative Political Action Conference in Newport Beach this month, McClintock leveled a blast at just about everyone. Then, he posted it on his own blog. The litany of accusations is pure Karl Rove. First he makes sure that his audience thinks of the as the "liberal elite who jet to environmental conferences in Gulfstream Fives". Then he goes after those who would not allow brush to be cut from around houses in fire prone areas but never mentions the fact that maybe we should not build in fire prone area, like Tahoe or the foothills East of San Diego.

The, he produces facts that no scientist has very verified and argues from that point.

And finally the third inconvenient question: If global warming is caused by YOUR SUV, why is it that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide always follow increases in global temperatures by several hundred years, indicating that CO2 is a byproduct of increasing temperatures – not a cause.

I would have expected as much from Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe but thought that McClintock was a bit more honest than that. I guess not.

With all of this coming from leading politicians who supposedly have the interests of their constituents at heart, it is little wonder that we find results of polls like that conducted by the Antelope Valley Press and blogged at Aquafornia.

Recently, the Antelope Valley Press did an unofficial survey, and asked its readers if they were willing to curb their water usage in order to save the smelt. The results were 26% yes, 74% no.

McClintock will leave the State Senate this year, having reached his term limit. It is not too soon. Maybe this is his attempt to maintain some relevance in the Conservative movement, he does end it with a call for a return to a past that never was.

And at that moment, we will see a new political awakening and a new political realignment in California, and before you know it, we’ll be living once again in Reagan Country.

The California Green Party has a lot to do in re-educating a public that has listened to too much Tom McClintock and Michael Savage, who has been presented with "Don" Perata as the alternative while the Don is only selling protection.

I keep coming back to the idea that the only way to work through these problems is the Green way. We need all to be speaking out, now and continuously against the likes of McClintock and his pseudo science, against the 19th Century exploitation of nature that Maze calls for. The only good thought is that with leaders like McClintock, so out of touch with reality, the California Republican Party is not likely to ever return to Reagan Country.

Endangered Science

In my odyssey toward understanding the real dangers of Pombo's work in the House of Representatives, I came across the writings of Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science.

Mooney seems to be enthused over the prospect of a new Congress without James Inhofe as Chair of the Senate Commimttee on Environment and Public Works (it will be Sen. Boxer) or with Joe Barton as Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. He neglected to even mention Pombo, maybe because he was ultimately so ineffective.

There are still many issues that remain and powerful interests that are alreay lining up to lobby Democrats in the same manner as the previously lobbied Republicans. Speaker to be Pelosi promised lobby reform in the first 100 hrs of a new Democratic House. We need to watch how powerful she really is and whether she can actually deliver on that promise.

Mooney feels that the scientific issues are fundamentally partisan, that the Democrats are on the side of truth and the Republicans are not.

...the treatment of specific science-related issues--global warming, embryonic stem cell research, etc--will also change. In short, we're going to be in a very different world in terms of the relationship between politics and science in the United States. Some good old checks and balances will be coming into force--thank goodness.

By the way, all of this is proof enough--as if anyone ever needed any--that many core aspects of science policy are fundamentally partisan in the currrent political climate. That's why we expect them to change when Congress changes hands.

This is where I feel Mooney has too much faith in the power of scientific reasoning and too little apprehension about the power of money. The think tanks that fed the Republican agenda all had proper sounding names. The Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy was truthfully funded by Exxon-Mobil and the Pharmeceutical Industry. Their agenda had little to do with science, but rather they existed only to turn the term "sound science" into a code word for "scientists do not know everything so trust us."

The problems of land use, water use, agricultural land retention, energy and global warming can not be totally separated. There will be many special interests who will tell us all that there is no "sound science" on which to base any policy decisions. What that means is that we are supposed to deprive ourselves of the best tools available for shaping those decisions and rely on their judgement, not our own.

Greens need to demand that we start using the best science currently available in order to shape policy. Once we do, we have a chance to establish some sort of environmental justice in this country. Until we do, we have no chance.