This is interesting and noteworthy:

Planning to fly off to the tropics? Well, its time you reconsidered your holiday plans, for according to a new research, a typical flight there has a greater impact on global warming than a flight in temperate latitudes.

As well as producing carbon dioxide and contrails, planes also produce nitrogen oxide, which triggers both the creation of the warming gas ozone, and the destruction of another greenhouse gas, methane, according to the study.

According to Keith Shine of the University of Reading, UK, in mid-latitudes, the ozone and methane reactions cancel each other out and you get zero net warming from nitrogen oxide emissions, reports New Scientist.

But the brighter sunlight in the tropics is very efficient at converting nitrogen oxide to ozone - in fact it creates ozone five times faster than in the air of mid-latitudes, according to Shine's calculations.

Whereas methane destruction only increases marginally, Shine added.

Hopefully when I'm ready to retire, train service to Florida will be much better than it is today, and then rail passengers can hop on my boat and I'll take you to any tropical island you want to visit :)

Good, Obama has released a statement on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change bill. I was a little concerned that he didn't show up to vote for cloture on this bill, but I'll get to that after you read his statement, which is here in full.

“As this week’s debate on climate change has unfolded, the American people and those watching us around the world had every reason to hope that we would act. Every credible scientist and expert believes action is necessary. This is critical and long overdue legislation that represents a good first step in addressing one of the most serious problems facing our generation.

Like many of my Senate colleagues, I believe the legislation could have been made even better. Had there been a substantive Senate debate about some of the concerns with this bill, I believe the outcome could have generated broad support. It certainly would have received my support.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the Senate has chosen to block progress, rather than work in a good faith manner to address this challenge. This is a failure of our politics and a failure of leadership — a President who for years denied the problem, and a Republican nominee, John McCain, who claims leadership on the issue but opposes this bipartisan bill.

We can’t afford more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake. We are already breaking records with the intensity of our storms, the number of forest fires, and the periods of drought. By 2050, famine could force more than 250 million from their homes. And if we do nothing, sea levels will rise high enough to swallow large portions of every coastal city and town.

This bipartisan legislation establishes an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions. It helps states, cities, and towns invest in technologies to reduce energy bills for homeowners, increase energy efficiency, construct green buildings, and expand public transit. It invests in green technology to help our automakers to retool and our fossil-fuel industries to become clean. The bill provides real financial relief to working families. Importantly, the bill restores our great nation’s international leadership role, while including provisions to ensure that all major emitting nations also take serious action to solve this global problem.

Let me clear, this bill is not perfect. Emissions reductions must reflect the scientific consensus, which are reductions of at least 80 percent 2050. We must ensure that more middle-class families reap more of the financial benefits created by this bill. And we must direct greater resources to the regions of the country that will bear the brunt of this critical transition to a clean energy economy.

I believe that the American people are ready to lead the world on this issue. The time for distractions, divisions, and excuses is over. The time for new coalitions, informed and civil debate, and a sense of shared purpose is long overdue. As president, I am committed to ensuring that our children and our children’s children can point to this generation as the time when American found its way again.”

The fact that he did show up to vote for cloture is not a great thing, but it's not entirely bad either since there weren't near enough votes for cloture to happen. At best, only 54 Senators would have voted for cloture, which essentially means the same results would have happened with or without Obama.

It's good, however, that he's as conflicted about Lieberman-Warner as a lot of us are. As much as I want a climate change bill to pass, I would prefer a good, solid bill that actually starts us down the correct path over a lukewarm bill that's been watered down and may be difficult to build on down the road.

Perhaps H.R.6186, the Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act introduced by Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts will be more to his liking, and mine as well. We'll see how it plays out, but I don't really expect a major climate change bill to pass until next year.

I'm quickly becoming a huge fan of Planet Green television. The regular shows are pretty good, albeit similar to other Discovery Networks programming, but what got my attention tonight was the 2 part documentary Expedition Alaska. (Note: The link listed at the end of the show doesn't appear to work.)

If you saw this program tonight, then you'll understand why it fills me with an unhealthy level of anger about what's happening to our planet. I lived in Alaska for two years back in the early 90's. I've seen the beauty of Alaska up close and personal, walked on her frozen tundra, fished the streams, hiked through her forests, and what I saw tonight on Expedition Alaska is outrageous.

Two things bugged me the most as I was watching this show. First, was the methane bubbling up from the permafrost in Northern Alaska. I've walked on that ground, and looking down into the hole they dug and watching the methane bubbling to the surface from two feet down was like a kick in the teeth. That gas should be trapped, yet in the middle of a small lake, there was so much methane escaping from under the water it could be seen from the air.

And then there was the sea ice. I was simply flabbergasted that it was a 2 hour boat ride from shore just to find any sea ice at all, and even then there was very little. I remember seeing lots and lots of sea ice when I was in the Bering Sea, and it wasn't like we had to go looking for it. Usually it found us.

I'm not only furious because of the dramatic impact global warming is having on our planet; That in and of itself is bad enough. More than that, I'm angry because even though the stark evidence of the impact of global warming is right there, being broadcast directly into our homes, people I talk to every day will tell me climate change doesn't exist. I mean, you can see it right there with your own eyes in your own living room, yet there are still idiots and greedy corporations out there who are trying to convince people that it's not real, that it's just part of a natural cycle, or whatever the latest FUD is.

How they can say that in the face of such overwhelming visual evidence shoved right in their faces is truly beyond my ability to comprehend. It's just... astounding.

I suppose I shouldn't be so angry that I'm actually writing a rant about it, considering the climate change deniers wouldn't be caught dead watching a channel like Planet Green in the first place.

By now most of you have probably heard about the polar bear who, after swimming 200 miles (about 300km) to Iceland, where police promptly shot and killed it. The fact that melting ice forced the bear to swim 200 miles in search of land is disgusting in and of itself, but to outright kill it is even worse. There's video of the actual shooting at the Sydney Morning Herald but I warn you, it is graphic.

I looked for the actual video that SMH has on their site, but it looks like it may have been pulled from Youtube.

I have yet to hear a good excuse as to why the bear was shot, and absolutely no measures were taken to try and relocate the bear. This whole event seriously pisses me off.

You gotta love the Club for Growth. If there's any aspect of pro-corporation PR they're not involved in, I'll be shocked. Of course, they've always loved fighting environmental legislation, which is why it's no surprise they're about to run a major ad campaign urging Congress to shoot down the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill.

A conservative, free-market advocacy group will begin airing ads this week pressing Senate Republicans and Democrats to vote against a bill that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Club for Growth wants to scuttle a bill by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, and John Warner, R-Va., that the Senate is scheduled to begin debating next month. Despite the ad campaign, the bill seems to lack the votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

With $250,000 in radio and television spots, the Club for Growth is targeting Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and Democratic Sens. Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana. Dole, a co-sponsor of the bill, as well as Alexander, Baucus and Rockefeller face re-election this year.

This doesn't mean Lieberman-Warner is necessarily a good bill. But it is a pro-environment bill that will start the process of moving the U.S. in the right direction, even with the flaws it contains. It would be much better now, with a Republican in the White House, to pass this bill and send a notice to heavy polluters that times are about to change. Then when we get a Democrat elected to the office of President, we can really push for much more stringent standards, and push for truly effective environmental legislation.

Ok, so I probably should have gone and ready the actual ruling that listed polar bears as a threatened species, because it seems that the asswipes in Washington filled it so full of loopholes that it could actually make matters worse.

Here's what others are saying, and I'll have more on this subject tomorrow after I get my hands on the actual ruling (and a few hours sleep tonight):

The Sierra Club was among the first conservation groups to criticize the approach, with Executive Director Carl Pope saying it was "riddled with loopholes, caveats, and backhanded language that could actually undermine protections for the polar bear and other species."

"The administration's attempts to reduce protection to the polar bear from greenhouse gas emissions are illegal and won't hold up in court," added Kassie Siegel, climate program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, and lead author of the 2005 petition that first triggered the Interior Department to study a listing.

Clayton Jernigan, an attorney for Earthjustice, said Kempthorne made clear steps would be taken to avoid interfering with offshore oil development in waters where bears and oil drilling are expected to coexist.

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, was among those who felt Kempthorne was essentially forced to issue the listing, but at least acted so "that opportunities to continue to explore and drill in Alaska will not be impacted."

In February, the Interior Department sold oil and gas rights across some 29.7 million acres of the Chukchi Sea off the Alaskan coast — including prime polar bear habitat — for a record $2.66 billion.

Color me stupid for being so optimistic that the government would do the right thing. You'd think I would no better by now.

UPDATE: Ok, so I went ahead and searched for the actual ruling from the Interior Dept. and decided to share. You can download the semi-large pdf by clicking here.

UPDATE 2: I decided to go ahead and create a news page for the Latest News on the Polar Bear Protections as much to help myself keep up with everything being written, and for everyone else to use as well.

Hey, some good news for a change! I just got the following email from WWF telling me that the polar bear is now listed as a threatened species.

The U.S. Department of the Interior has listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, which gives the bear important new protections. More than 16,000 WWF supporters spoke out for this icon of the North during the public comment period on the proposed listing. Thank you!

WWF also thanks the 22,000 activists who opposed the sale of oil and gas leases in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, within prime polar bear habitat. Unfortunately, despite an outpouring of public opposition, the Minerals Management Service recently opened nearly 30 million acres of the Chukchi Sea to oil and gas exploration. Because of the polar bear’s new threatened status, however, MMS will need to ensure that its actions do not jeopardize the polar bear’s continued existence.

The polar bear was listed due to the threat from climate change-induced loss of its sea ice habitat. Based on current ice models and projections for polar bear populations, experts believe that two-thirds of the world's polar bear population may be lost by 2050. While the Endangered Species Act listing is an important step forward, urgent additional action is needed by governments and societies to reduce our carbon footprint.

I have to admit, I'm slightly surprised. I assumed the folks at the Department of the Interior would bow to political pressure and decide to offer the polar bears no protection at all so the oil companies could get their hands on their habitat. Seems a little activism and vocal support can actually make a difference.

Some people simply don't get it. When it comes to science, you don't begin a study already knowing the outcome. Generally, you begin a study by asking a question, then conducting tests to determine whether or not you were correct. But to far too many politicians, science is simply another tool to advance a political agenda.

In this case, it's politicians in Alaska, mainly Republicans, who want to hire "scientists" to disprove studies already conducted by the state's Interior Department.

See, the politicians don't like the idea that scientists are showing polar bears are threatened by climate change, and need to be named as a protected species. Actually doing that would mean one thing... less windfall profits for their buddies in big oil.

The Alaskan government wants to find scientists who will study polar bears to prove they are not threatened by global warming, officials say.

Republican legislative leaders in Alaska say the current scientific stance that polar bears are being "threatened" by global warming could potentially have a negative impact on Alaska's economy and arctic oil development, The Anchorage Daily News reported Sunday.

"We want to have the money to hire scientists to answer the Interior (Department) scientists," House Speaker John Harris, R-Valdez, said of the scientific fight.

Unfortunately, these politicians will most likely get their way, and in the process all they'll accomplish, other than further oil profits, is to confuse the public even more about the realities of climate change.

You know, it's news like this that really makes me hate getting up early on Monday mornings. I apologize for the short diary before heading out for work, but seeing this story really annoyed me this morning, and I just couldn't leave the house without sharing.

What bothers me the most, however, is that these politicians are openly calling for junk science so that they can continue their political agenda, and they feel absolutely no shame in doing so. That, my friends, is what I call disgusting.

I mostly like this ad from Friends of the Earth Action, released on Earth Day, slamming John McCain for what will certainly be a disastrous environmental policy should he be elected.

To be fair, I could support nuclear energy if we had a good way to dispose of nuclear waste. That's not a popular position to take, but I do feel that nuclear energy is a good option, but only after we figure out where to store the waste, or find a way to permanently neutralize it.

But that's not the point of the ad. The truth is, John McCain doesn't have a clue about the environment, and never will. Then again, John McCain doesn't have a clue about hardly anything, so what's new.

This is from the FoE Action press release:

“It is outrageous for Senator McCain to portray himself as tough on spending and as a friend of the environment, and then go out and push all this pork for corporate polluters. That’s not straight talk,” said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth Action. “Instead of adding more pork for the nuclear industry, Senator McCain should be trying to cut the fat that’s already there.”

Blackwelder noted that McCain’s opponents in the presidential campaign, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have voiced support for a different approach to global warming—a cap-and-trade system that makes polluters pay for their pollution via a 100 percent auction of pollution permits. When the Lieberman-Warner bill came before the Senate’s environment and public works committee in December, Clinton offered an amendment to eliminate many of its giveaways by adding 100 percent auctions to the bill. Obama has spoken of his support for 100 percent auctions as a key difference between himself and McCain.

McCain’s attempt to add more polluter pork to the global warming bill is hardly the only recent strike against his environmental record. He also failed to show up for two votes within the last six months that would have promoted clean energy solutions such as wind and solar power; each of those measures failed by a one-vote margin, and the other presidential candidates showed up to vote.

“There is a wide gulf between McCain and the Democratic candidates on environmental issues and global warming,” Blackwelder said. “These ads are calling attention to that gulf with the hope of persuading McCain to start taking the legislative actions that are logically required to erase it. Opposing polluter giveaways in the Lieberman-Warner bill would be a good first step.”

A hunger crisis could be looming for many parts of the world

The World Food Program, at a summit in London, is warning the world that we may be on the verge of a global food crisis.

Speaking Tuesday at summit in London, Josette Sheeran, executive director at the World Food Program, referred to a “silent tsunami” of hunger in many developing countries across the globe.

Rising fuel prices and unpredictable weather and demand have all become factors leading to the first global food crisis since World War II.

"What we are seeing now is affecting more people on every continent," Sheeran said.

[...]

The price of food staples have seen drastic increases in recent months. The price of rice, for example, has more than doubled in just the last five weeks.

These changes have caused deaths in Cameroon and Haiti, while sparking civil unrest.

"We are going through a very serious crisis and we are going to see lots of food strikes and demonstrations," Said Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

[...]

This problem has been growing for quite some time, and we're even beginning to feel the pinch here in the United States, with Sam's Club deciding this week to limit the sale of imported rice in order to protect their inventory.

Food supply is extremely important in the debate about climate change. We've already seen how food shortages are causing riots in Haiti and other places, and many people believe that lost resources due to climate change will continue to be a flashpoint for violent conflicts around the world.

Yesterday I posted a short rant about the EPA apparently canceling plans to announce tougher restrictions on ozone emissions across the nation. Turns out, they only canceled the announcement, not the restrictions themselves.

The EPA did in fact issue new, tougher guidelines on ozone emissions, and they now say that 345 of 700 monitored counties now have air that is too dirty to breath.

The air in hundreds of U.S. counties is simply too dirty to breathe, the government said Wednesday, ordering a multibillion-dollar expansion of efforts to clean up smog in cities and towns nationwide.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced it was tightening the amount of ozone, commonly known as smog, that will be allowed in the air. But the lower standard still falls short of what most health experts say is needed to significantly reduce heart and asthma attacks from breathing smog-clogged air.

The question is, are they serious about enforcing the new standards? Apparently not...

Johnson said that state and local officials have considerable time to meet the requirements - as much as 20 years for some that have the most serious pollution problems. EPA estimates that by 2020 the number of counties failing to meet the new health standard will drop to about 28.

About 85 counties still fall short of the old standard enacted a decade ago.

In other words, the worst polluters in the nation have around 20 years to reduce the amount of ozone they're pumping into the atmosphere, regardless of the health impact it has on the people who live in those counties. The excuse is that because they are putting out more pollution, it will take them longer to reduce it.

Bullshit.

I've lived in a monitored county for most of my adult life, and believe me, if they want to meet ozone emission standards, they can do it. All it takes is the political will to enforce the law.

It's not like ozone emission standards are anything new. The counties that have problems now have had the same amount of time to reduce emissions as everyone else, for the most part, and the only reason they haven't reduced their ozone emission levels is for lack of the political will to enforce the standards.

And as much as I rag on corporations for fighting pollution standards, my neighbors are just as much a part of this particular problem as anybody else. Even so, it's still up to local officials to have the political will to enforce these standards. If my neighbor is out mowing his grass at 4:00 in the afternoon in 95 degree weather, not only is he an idiot, but he's contributing to my county's average ozone level. The cop driving down the street needs to stop, get out of his air-conditioned car, and either tell the guy to save it until later or write him a ticket.

Anyway, before I go on too much of a rant, let me finish up by saying one last thing. I'm glad the EPA is setting tougher ozone emission standards. This is a good thing. But it's not good enough.

We need to continue pushing for even tougher standards. This idea that dirty air is acceptable has got to be thrown out once and for all, and the only way to make that happen is by directly engaging the government. These standards are better than what we had before, but they're not good enough and we have to keep the pressure on.

As much as I hate to admit it, government is the only resource we have for solving problems like this, because they're the only ones with the authority to enforce high standards of air quality nation-wide. So rejoice in that this is a step forward, but keep pushing for even tougher regulations than we have now.

Oh, as an afterthought, let me give you one other thing to get pissed off about on this topic.

The science boards had told the agency that limits of 60 to 70 parts per billion are needed to protect the nation's most vulnerable citizens, especially children, the elderly and people suffering from asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

"Today's decision means millions of Americans will not get the protection that the law requires," said Bernadette Toomey, president of the American Lung Association, which had strongly urged the EPA to follow the advice of the science boards.

Johnson said he took those recommendations into account, but disagreed with the scientists. "In the end it is a judgment. I followed my obligation. I followed the law. I adhered to the science," Johnson said in a conference call with reporters.

Johnson said he did not consider the cost of meeting the new air standard. States and counties would have to require emission reductions from factories, power plants and cars to meet the tougher health rules.

I only point this out because EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson just said very explicitly that science "is a judgment".

In a reality based world, that would be enough to get him fired. But right now we're living in bizarro-Republican land, and hell, that's about the best we're gonna get.

Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey have introduced a new bill that strictly limits how new coal-fired power plants are being built. From their announcement:

"Comprehensive economy-wide regulation to address global warming is coming soon," said Rep. Waxman. “But new uncontrolled coal-fired power plants are being built today. My legislation says: “No new plants without emissions controls.” The alternative is senseless - locking in decades of additional global warming emissions and requiring greater emissions reductions across the U.S. economy to compensate."

"If we lose control of coal, we will have lost control of the climate," said Markey, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. "This bill will make companies prepare for the future and prevent them from building low-tech coal-fired power plants before a global warming bill is passed that will necessitate the use of the newest, most climate-friendly technology. "

Without emissions controls, a new coal-fired power plant will emit hundreds of millions of tons of global warming pollution over its fifty-year lifetime. Over 100 new plants have been proposed, and even if just a portion of these are built, they will emit over a hundred million tons of carbon dioxide a year. One of these plants alone could offset the reductions that will be achieved through the Northeastern states' Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

The bill places a moratorium on either EPA or states issuing permits to new coal-fired power plants without state-of-the-art control technology to capture and permanently sequester the plant's carbon dioxide emissions. The moratorium extends until a comprehensive federal regulatory program for global warming pollution is in place.

The bill also bars a new coal-fired power plant without state-of-the-art control technology from receiving any free or reduced cost emissions allowances under a future federal program to address global warming.

While it's not an outright ban on new coal-fired power plants, it may work out to becoming an effective ban. Companies are not going to want to build coal-fired power plants when the costs of meeting these strict requirements are so high.

An outright ban on coal power plants, while it would be the most desirable action, isn't likely to pass either the House or Senate. As it is, this bill is going to have a long, hard fight in order to make it to the President's desk. And I highly doubt the President will sign such a strongly worded bill.

But more often than not, legislation of this type takes three or four attempts before it becomes law, and with a new President in office in less than a year, chances are it's only a matter of time before coal goes away forever.

Keep in mind, however, that while people may not be totally against coal-fired power plants if they're permanently sequestering CO², there are still a lot of coal mines out there wreaking havoc on the environment. The only long-term solution is an outright ban, but I don't have a problem taking small steps towards that goal when the opportunity presents itself

The bill itself hasn't been assigned a number yet, and it isn't listed at the Library of Congress yet, but you can read the text of the bill as it was introduce here (pdf).

Note:This is from a press release issued by the World Wildlife Fund. No editing from me except to add links where they belong.

World Wildlife Fund today named HP as the official US technology partner for Earth Hour, the global climate change event taking place Saturday, March 29 at 8 pm local time (www.earthhour.org) in cities around the world.

During Earth Hour, millions of individuals and businesses will turn off their lights for one hour, demonstrating that by working together, we can all make a difference in the fight against climate change.

"We can't stop climate change in a single hour, but through Earth Hour 2008 we hope to raise awareness and encourage people to make energy reduction a priority long after the lights come back on," said Richard Moss, vice president of WWF's Climate Change program. "We are pleased HP has shown such strong leadership among companies in the technology sector and is developing models for the entire industry on how companies can reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and promote energy efficiency."

"Collaboration is key when it comes to addressing the effects of climate change," said Pat Tiernan, vice president of Social and Environmental Responsibility at HP. "Furthering our alliance with WWF supports our goal to educate others about climate change and energy efficiency."

During Earth Hour, some of the world's most iconic skylines, including those in Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix and San Francisco, will go dark for one hour in this dramatic call for action on climate change. With a total of 25 cities participating in 10 countries, Earth Hour will be the largest voluntary power down in history.

Climate Progress has noted that California is going to be adding another number to the stickers on new cars starting next year. This time, it's a Climate Change Score (pdf).

Next to the smog score will be a global warming score. The California
Air Resources Board (CARB) is putting the finishing touches on the
program.

[...]

Vehicles are assigned a score of 1 to 10 based upon their emissions,
with 1 for the worst, and 10 for the lowest greenhouse gas emissions.
However, calling it a “Global Warming Score” and having 10 be the best
is likely to cause some confusion. Perhaps “Planet Saver Score” would
be better?

I have to agree. A "Global Warming Score" of 10 being better than 1 is a little awkward. Maybe it'll get changed by the time the program goes into effect next year.

The only bad thing about this is that state governments shouldn't have to develop these type of programs. This is something that the federal government should be doing, making it a nation-wide program. But hey, every little bit counts, I suppose.