Wednesday, 31 Jan 2007

Grandchildren, Schmandchildren

Congress holds hearings, realizes climate change is upon us

It's official: Congress has red-hot climate-change ants in its pants. As climate-related hearings in the House and Senate got rolling this week, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) demanded White House documents that could show scientific interference. With a new report by two NGOs citing more than 120 scientists who report fed-meddling with their climate work, Waxman -- running his first hearing as chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee -- ain't just whistlin' "Oh Susanna." In the Senate, Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) launched an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing to review climate solutions from both sides of the aisle, with speakers including John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Many noted the massive shift from debating the realities of the issue to finding solutions. "We are no longer just talking about how global warming will affect our children's and grandchildren's lives," McCain said. "We now are talking about how it is already impacting the world."


Environmentalists are horrible communicators, says GOP pollster and strategist Frank Luntz, who helped shape Newt Gingrich's Contract With America and popularize the phrase "death tax." On top of that, he argues, greens are downright mean. Amanda Griscom Little caught up with the famed message-meister -- who's on the road promoting his new book Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear -- to get his take on Schwarzenegger, Gore, McCain, and how to talk the talk.

Giant Pander

Bush concentrates more rule-making power in the hands of political appointees

A new executive order from President Bush will give political appointees much more power over rules and guidance documents related to the environment, public health, civil rights, and other areas -- power previously held by lame old scientists and civil servants. As The New York Times puts it, "The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president's priorities." Said Jeffrey A. Rosen of the White House Office of Management and Budget, "This is a classic good-government measure that will make federal agencies more open and accountable." But critics say the move is a power grab by the White House that opens the door to economic excuses for not protecting public health and the environment. "There is no question who this panders to," said Rena Steinzor, a University of Maryland law professor. "It's something business has wanted." Wait, businesses have a say in Bush's decisions? That's crazy talk.

One if By Land, Zilch if By Air

New U.S. nuclear-security policy draws fire from critics

The safe, clean Nuclear Regulatory Commission has revised its security policy, drawing criticism from members of Congress and others. The new policy addresses terror attacks by land, water, and computer, but leaves air defenses to the military. Instead of adapting suggested measures including no-fly zones, protective cages, and anti-aircraft guns on site, the policy instructs operators to fine-tune evacuation plans and prevent leaks of safe, clean radiation. The country's 103 commercial nuclear reactors, said safe, clean NRC Chair Dale Klein, "are inherently robust structures that our studies show provide adequate protection in a hypothetical attack by an airplane." But a German simulation showed that such attacks could cause fires or radiation leaks. "Fire prevention is always better than firefighting," said Michele Boyd of D.C.-based watchdog Public Citizen. "Nuclear terrorism prevention is far more prudent than trying to reduce radiation exposures after the fact." Two words, Boyd. Two words.


With cold weather hitting in unexpected places like California and Texas (seriously, people, what gives?), a reader in San Diego discovered that her attic could stand to be insulated. But she wonders about the best choice, given the green factors at stake. Advice maven Umbra Fisk batts around some thoughts on home energy efficiency, explaining why that pretty pink fiberglass should be the option of last resort.

Hey, We Made a Boo-Boo

Yellowstone grizzlies may lose protections, while also losing food source

What do beetles, pine trees, grizzly bears, and global warming have in common? Check it: the U.S. plans to lift Endangered Species Act protections for Yellowstone-area grizzlies. But that move may be premature. Enter: high-altitude whitebark pines, the seeds of which are Yellowstone bears' main food source in late summer and fall. Enter: the mountain pine beetle, destroyer of pines, which used to chow only on mid-altitude trees but has increased its range as temperatures have risen. Thanks in large part to beetles, "We are very worried the whitebarks may be locally extirpated, if not driven extinct," says Diana Tomback of the Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation. And that spells bad news for grizzlies. The bears could seek refuge in Wyoming's Wind River Range, which computer models predict may stay cool enough to avoid beetle infestation until 2100. But greens, worried that bears may be hunted in the range if not protected, may sue to stop them from being delisted. And those are the bear facts.