As you have probably heard by now, Al Gore delivered his speech on "A Generational Challenge to Repower America," in Washington, D.C. today. Gore was noticeably trimmer and very presidential up amongst the American flags and backdrop of DAR Constitution Hall. Before he launched into his motivational talk, he gave a shout out to the VIP section -- a bipartisan array of senators and congressmen, musician Will.i.am, and Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr.

His vision wasn't just about tackling climate change, but instead a fundamental restructuring of our current energy plan, or lack thereof, for our own national and economic security. Gore received thunderous applause when he challenged our current operating procedure, such as how, "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf," and calling on Americans to buck the status quo.

Gore's best received talking points were those that spoke to every American: the need for keeping jobs in the US while creating new ones, for keeping the country's resources at home (rather than fighting in "dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies"), and ensuring new jobs for those displaced by the transition.

He also acknowledged the nation's collective ADD when explaining why he chose 10 years, and pointed out that after JFK promised to have a man on the moon in 10 years, it only took 8 years and 2 months.

Its hard to find fault with Gore's optimism and insinuation that if we follow his plan, not only will the economy rebound, but so will our international standing. But, while his speech may have been inspiring, Gore didn't talk about specifics -- what steps he was going to take to ensure his plan was implemented, how much is it going to cost, and how he plans on telling those invested in oil, gas and coal extraction that they no longer can access and sell their fossil fuels.

But such concerns were not shared by the rest of the audience, who gave Gore an extended standing ovation as he left the stage to U2's 'Beautiful Day'.

There was no Q&A period, so we had to go to the WeCanSolveIt.com website to get a response to Newt Gingrich's apparent conflict of interest. The Alliance for Climate Protections' Brian Hardwick wrote: "Clearly we have a fundamental disagreement on how to address our energy and climate challenges. We don't have plans to run the ad featuring Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich in the future."

We contacted American Solutions for Winning the Future for comment, but have not yet heard back. We'll let you know if that changes.

In a few hours, Al Gore is scheduled to give a major speech in Washington, D.C., where, in the words of the We Campaign, the Nobel Laureate will issue a major challenge, "essentially pressing the reset button on how we think about energy and climate ... It will propose a means of tapping America’s innovative skills to build a more secure energy future."

Sounds like a big deal, which is why EnviroWonk writer Samantha Hulkower is currently en route to Constitution Hall, and will report back on the details later this afternoon.

We're hoping the former Veep takes questions, and especially hoping that one of those questions has to do with why the former House Speaker -- seen above doing his best to force a smile next to the current House Speaker in one of those ubiquitous couch ads -- is still allowed to promote Gore's We Campaign.

We ask because ever since deciding not to run for president, Newt Gingrich has been busy with a group of his own -- American Solutions for Winning the Future -- of which he is chairman. The group's slogan is "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less," which is not a talking point you'll find anywhere on the We Campaign's site. The mission of American Solutions is to "urge Congress to act immediately to lower gas prices by authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves ..." Not surprisingly, as the Alaskan Wilderness League discovered, the group is funded almost entirely by Big Oil interests.

So what we have here is a disconnect. When Newt smiles at Pelosi and says in the We Campaign ad that "our country must take action to address climate change," we're pretty sure that American Solutions isn't what the group had in mind when they asked Gingrich to take part in one of these odd couple commercials.

In his New York Times blog, Andy Revkin wonders this morning whether he gave Gingrich too much credit: "I gave the former (and future?) politician the benefit of the doubt last year when I covered his call for conservatives to moderate their approach to the environment. Joe Romm (and others) excoriated me (and others) for not recognizing a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Is Mr. Gingrich proving them right?"

Word is that Gore will challenge the nation this morning to produce every kilowatt of electricity through alternative energy sources within 10 years. He will not challenge Americans to drill wherever it is possible. In other words, it might be time to delete some of the promotional material from the We Campaign site.

Part IV of EnviroWonk writer Samantha's Hulkower's day at the National Integrity in Science Conference in D.C. last week. Check out her previous posts on the big event here, here and here.

After starting the day with two panels on weighty topics, we were looking forward to lunch -- not just because of free food, but because our brains needed a break from the horrible truth of reality.

But we could hardly be disappointed by the speech given by NASA scientist Jim Hansen, because this guy was speaking out about climate change - political appointees be damned! - since before it was cool.

Hansen laid to waste most of the skeptics arguments, and said that the only real knowledge gap regarding climate science is "between what the scientists know and what the policy makers understand." That's right politicians, he's calling you dumb.

Hansen's sees two main hurdles to sound climate policy:

• fossil fuel interests
• young people, who will actually be alive when things get really bad, and animals don't (generally) vote

He did mention some solutions that echoed President Bush's opinion: the free market, not the government, should pick the winners and losers in terms of what technology and solutions will transition us away from fossil fuels. Hmmm, are politicians listening to scientists already?

Rising gas prices are affecting pretty much everyone these days, and farmers are no different. But farmers in New York, the Schenectady Gazette reported last weekend, are in more of a bind because of a state tax law that makes them seek reimbursement for taxes on fuel.

The Gazette reported that while farmers in New York are generally exempt from taxes on goods for their operations like diesel fuel and feed for animals, EPA’s 2007 rule forcing farmers to use clean diesel means they pay taxes on their fuel and then seek reimbursement. One farmer interviewed for the piece, who said he can spend up to $30,000 per month on diesel, told the Gazette it took him some four months to get reimbursed. Not that it's really a parallel, but it took us a good three months to get our economic stimulus check from the feds.

New York lawmakers tried on several occasions to amend the tax code last year, but none were successful.

And today, the Southeast Missourian and the AP wrote about how farmers are adapting to higher diesel costs in the Midwest. The paper saw more farmers using electricity to power irrigation equipment, which uses less energy and costs less than diesel.

EnviroWonk writer Samantha Hulkower attended last week's National Integrity in Science Conference in D.C. Check out her previous posts on the big event here and here.

After the day's first panel, we moved on to a discussion about Curbing Industry Influence Over Regulatory Science. This panel portended to be at least marginally more depressing than the previous one, seeing as how this administration seems to be little more than a series of revelations of how industry insiders and former lobbyists are shaping policy and enforcement.

Moderator Reece Rushing from the Center for American Progress pointed out that ironically, product recalls, food poisonings, pet deaths, etc. show the public the real need for greater scientific oversight of regulations, because who wants to have to risk a case of salmonella every time they eat salsa?

The takeaway point from this discussion was the Bush Administration seems to be missing the point of a small, unobtrusive government when OMB gets involved in virtually every proposed regulation, using political appointees to override the decisions of trained scientists. The arbitrary cost-benefit analysis popularized during Regan's term, to determine whether a project is worth investing in or to clean-up waste, does not make for good policy, and politicians should just leave important decisions, like how much carcinogen in your drinking water is too much, to the experts.

During the Q&A, an EPA pesticides scientist told the audience how she asked to take a training day to attend the conference, and her higher-ups said no, because "this is not a legitimate scientific conference." We think that's pretty harsh coming from an Agency that can't even get its emails read by the White House.

This Article Continues::

What, you thought alternative energy companies were somehow exempt from shady business deals and crooked behavior?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo said this week that his office is investigating two wind power companies over allegations of "improper relations between the companies and local officials," in addition to other questionable practices.

Yesterday, Cuomo's office served subpoenas on First Wind and Noble Environmental Power, both of which are in the process of developing wind farms in several Western New York counties. Among the allegations: the companies illegally obtained land-use agreements with local officials, gave bribes and other benefits to those officials, and entered into anti-competitive agreements.

No word on how much officials money changed hands or what "other benefits" may entail, but opponents of the windmill projects have said that communities are not being told of proposed wind farms until they’re already approved. Yes, that does sound a little shady.

Cuomo almost sounded apologetic, saying in a statement yesterday that the use of wind power should "be encouraged to help clean our aid and end our reliance on fossil fuels." But he added that "if dirty tricks are used to facilitate even clean-energy projects, my office will put a stop to it."

Cross-posted from Envirovore

Texas Governor Rick Perry has a beef with the EPA’s new Renewable Fuel Standards. The Republican governor, as well as four dozen U.S. House members and two dozen senators (including John McCain), have written to the EPA chief requesting a 50 percent waiver of ethanol mandates, claiming the quotas will further harm cattle and chicken industries by raising feed prices.

Initially, a spring study by Texas A&M showed that a waiver on ethanol quotas would not reduce the price of corn in the U.S. However, upon request by Perry, A&M reanalyzed their data in light of the Midwest floods, and unsurprisingly, they found that a waiver would indeed drastically reduce the price of corn.

Researchers estimate that 43 percent of all corn grown in the United States will be for ethanol by 2016. It’s hard to imagine that this conversion has not already been raising corn prices for livestock producers. Unfortunately though, Perry’s request, apparently reasonable in its basis, is a tad spoiled by a $100,000 donation that the Perry-led Republican Governor's Association received from chicken magnate Lonnie “Bo” Pilgrim.

EPA's decision on the waiver of all states' ethanol production quotas is expected by July 23^rd.

Via Houston Chronicle

EnviroWonk writer Samantha Hulkower attended last week's Center for Science in the Public Interest's Fourth National Integrity in Science Conference in D.C. Click here for her first post on the big event.

The day began with a panel discussion on a familiar topic -- dismantling the "debate" of climate science. But the talk quickly devolved from the typical "things suck" to the "we're so screwed," which is always a nice way to start the morning.

The first speaker, IPCC scientist Anthony Broccoli, talked about what was considered known (the planet is warming and it's because of humans), made clear what they don't know (will hurricanes become more intense but less frequent?), and emphasized that uncertainty works both ways. Sure, the predicted effects could be less intense than predicted ... but they could also be much worse, which is something the skeptics like to ignore.

The discussion moved on to oil, with former DOE career employee Robert Hirsch describing his 2005 Dept of Energy Peak Oil report, in which he prophesied that a decline in world oil production would lead to a surge in price, and that would result in economic contraction. The report suggested that a recession would follow, and oil would become the government's top priority. Hmmmm, sort of sounds a little like right now, doesn't it? Hirsch highlighted some important aspects that are often overlooked, such as:

• It's being called an "energy crisis", but really its a liquid fuels problem.
• most existing oil fields are in decline and new reserves are needed to maintain current production.
• Even if we switch to battery powered cars tomorrow, there are still millions of cars, trucks, airplanes, etc., that use oil and will continue to use oil throughout their life.
• We're 1-4 years away from a decline in world oil production.

Everyone was noticeably depressed at this point, so Hirsch left us with an uplifting thought: "I'm an optimist, we're going to get through this, but it is going to be a very painful future." Thanks.

This Article Continues::

As you probably heard, President Bush lifted the Executive Order on offshore oil drilling yesterday -- the same one his father happened to have executively ordered. Even though he's the decider, Bush's decision to lift the EO is, thankfully, largely symbolic. Congress has its own ban that it has renewed every year since 1980, long before the Bush 41 EO.

This morning, Bush held a rare press conference where he actually answered questions on the EO, in addition to the mortgage crisis, trade, and other issues. Below is our live blogging of the questions that pertained to drilling.

Bush's speech was short, and he spent only a few minutes addressing the EO. He did manage a few jabs at the Democrats, saying, "the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is Congress" and "as soon as Congress lifts these bans we can get the oil from the sea floor to the refiners and the American people."

He highlighted "responsible offshore exploration" that is possible due to his favorite "new technologies". But the phrase rings hollow in our ears -- sort of like "clean coal". His final, motivational words: "Bottom line is this, we're going through a tough time."

The Q&A is essentially verbatim- our thoughts (are in parenthesis).

Q: Gas prices are approaching $5 a gallon, offshore drilling will take time to get running, what are you gonna do about gas prices now?

A:Gas prices are reflected in the price of crude oil, and therefore it makes sense to me to say to the world we're going to use new technology to explore offshore, in ANWR, in shale -- there is no immediate fix. If I had a magic wand I would use it, but I don't have a magic wand. Tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve doesn't address the fundamental issues (he's right) -- and it's what I've been saying since I was president -- alternative energies and drilling for more oil (except the only "alternative" to hydrocarbons he mentions the whole time is nuclear). If we followed my energy plan from the beginning right now we'd be using more of our own oil and sending less money overseas.

This Article Continues::

Whether it be with the American people, the international community, or even his own party, President Bush isn't making many new friends these days for his refusal to allow meaningful climate change regulations to be enacted under his watch. But Bush can take comfort in the fact that he still has one steadfast ally in all of this: Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), whose middle name will soon officially become "Global Warming is the Greatest Hoax Ever."

Even though the Supreme Court told the EPA that it had the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2, the Bush administration has tried its best to avoid upsetting its fossil fuel industry friends and campaign donors regulations.

But Sen. Inhofe at least approves of the President's tactics, although we think his support is misguided. The often contrarian Senator agreed with EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's concern that regulating CO2 would effect every sector of the economy and every household, and warned his fellow lawmakers, "Today's notice should concern all lawmakers; no one should want the EPA to exercise the kind of power and authority that the career staff at EPA contemplates."

Then, sounding like a stoned and paranoid college freshman after first reading Orwell, he went on to say, "Big Brother is alive and well in the career ranks at the EPA." We think that perhaps the Senator doesn't truly understand the concept of a small, unobtrusive federal government, or even the term "Big Brother," as he happily supported FISA. Or maybe wiretapping has given him all the information he needs to be scared of EPA career employees. We think that the political appointees should give him more reason for concern.

Last week we checked out the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Fourth National Integrity in Science Conference in D.C., and we can assure you it was more exciting than event's title: "Rejuvenating Public Sector Science: A conference on restoring independent regulatory science."

Why so interesting? Because even though the conference did address science as a whole -- from food safety to medicine to energy -- the vast majority of the discussion panels involved environmental issues, as well as award for NASA superstar and climate scientist James Hansen. And while the panels also discussed the private sector's influence on federal scientific research, it seemed to us that the White House (by way of OMB ) was the more pernicious factor in keeping important scientific findings from reaching the public.

Speaking first was North Carolina Rep. Brad Miller, who Chairs the House Science and Technology subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. The tone was set for the day as the Congressman explained that the Bush Administration cares about scientific integrity as much as it does habius corpus, and his committee, along with Senator Boxer's and Rep. Waxman's, will be continuing to investigate the administrations actions far into the next presidency.

In subsequent conference posts, we'll share some of the surprising, scary, and even humorous things we learned, but we know what you really care about: was there any good swag? In a word, no. While a free issue of Mother Jones magazine does promise some interesting articles, the Union of Concerned Scientists calendar is 50 percent obsolete.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- who as you may recall has endorsed John McCain -- yesterday began actively campaigning for a spot in the Obama administration slammed the Bush administration for failing to address the threat of global warming and ignoring last year's Supreme Court decision that said the EPA could regulate C02 emissions as a pollutant.

Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Schwarzenegger said even if the administration were to take measures now to address the problem, it would be too little too late. "Well, to be honest with you, if they would have done something this year, I would have thought it was bogus anyway," the Governator told George Stephanopoulos. "Because you don't change global warming and you don't really have an effect by doing something six months before you leave office."

But what really has Arnold irked is last Friday's decision by EPA chief Stephen "Stonewall" Johnson to not take any steps at this time to regulate C02 emissions, 15 months after the high court said the agency had the power to do just that. Johnson said regulating such emissions requires Congress to make new rules, as well as public comment, which is code for "we'll let the next president deal with this."

The move by Johnson, said Schwarzenegger, "really means basically this administration did not believe in global warming." He said it's imperative that the US not wait for China and India, and should instead lead the fight against global warming in the same way it led the race to put a person on the moon 40 years ago.

Schwarzenegger didn't have much to say about his alleged presidential candidate of choice, and in typical Arnold fashion, wasn't exactly subtle when discussing Obama: "There are things I don't agree with him on, but he's taken leadership on a very difficult issue [climate change] and we haven't seen that kind of leadership in Washington."

And if that wasn't clear enough, Arnold ended with one more verbal wink, saying he's always willing to talk to Obama, "and I'd take his call when he's president, anytime." At which point someone in the McCain campaign took a few extra Tums and burned all their Terminator DVDs.

You have heard about last week's federal appeals court decision that overturned a Bush Administration clean air regulation. Doesn't sound like anything new or notable, but it is! For the first time in ages, the enviros and the White House are upset about the same thing. In fact, even the the Natural Resources Defense Council, who probably never sided with the current Administration on anything said, "This is probably the biggest air quality setback ever suffered by the EPA under any administration." Damn.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by electric companies and the state of North Carolina against EPA regarding its Clean Air Interstate Rule, which uses cap-and-trade to reduce nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions throughout 28 eastern states. North Carolina complained the law wasn't strict enough to allow the state to adequately enforce it, while the companies claimed that the agency picked arbitrary reduction targets. The court agreed with the companies, called the program "fundamentally flawed" and told the EPA to go back to the drawing board.

More than a few companies are peeved, given the amont of money they'd already invested in preparing for the cap-and-trade program (note that the pollutants aren't greenhouse gases), which they had generally been in favor of, and had not expected the court to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Whether it's real estate prices, the American dollar, or our standing in the international community, there are so few facets of our lives that have not decreased in value in recent years. Today, the AP uncovered the government's periodic monetary valuation of our lives, and it's $900,000 lower than five years ago, down to $6.9 million. Yes, according to the EPA, that is the "value of a statistical life."

It almost seems vulgar, certainly uncomfortable, to put a price tag on your a life, but the fact that we're worth less now isn't only an indication of the total shit state of our economy. It also happens to reduce the enforcement of pollution regulations if your life isn't worth the cost of the clean up. If this sounds cold, that's because it is. In an hypothetical example given by the AP, say a regulation costs $18 billion to enforce and will prevent 2,500 deaths. At the old EPA figure of $7.8 million per person, the lifesaving benefits outweight the costs. At the new figure ... well, not so much.

Economists are calling shenanigans on the administration, saying it is just manipulating the data to reflect what it wants -- not having to pay to clean up the environment. Just as upsetting, our values dropped anyway by $650,000, due to the reducing value of the dollar. This is what you get when you elect oilmen into the government. Although if T. Boone Pickens is changing for the better, is there hope for Bush?

President Bush is a funny guy. It's a shame that no one else appreciates his refined sense of humor and impeccable timing. How else to explain the reaction by all those snobby, pretentious G8 leaders to Bush's latest joke-telling episode?

As the G8 summit in Hokkaido, Japan was winding down today, Bush apparently ended a private meeting with other leaders with the words: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

We'll let the London Telegraph, the only outlet to report this story, explain the reaction from the obviously humorless onlookers:

"He [Bush] then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock ... One official who witnessed the extraordinary scene said afterwards: 'Everyone was very surprised that he was making a joke about America's record on pollution.'"

Okay, so maybe tensions were high because climate change negotiations this week didn't go as well as some people had hoped. And yeah, maybe some of that is because the U.S. blocked all proposals on interim emissions targets and benchmarks. But come on people, the man was just trying to lighten the mood!

Why is genius always so misunderstood?