http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0725/Activists-frustrated-at-Obama-s-environmental-record

Environmental activists were delighted to have Barack Obama replace George W. Bush as president. But greens are increasingly unhappy with Obama’s record – especially on climate change.

President Barack Obama surveys damage along the Louisiana coastline caused after a BP oil line ruptured in the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental activists say Obama should have used the Gulf oil spill to push for a cap on carbon emissions linked to global warming.
Larry Downing/Reuters

By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / July 25, 2010
When Barack Obama took over the White House from George W. Bush, environmental activists breathed a collective sigh of relief.

Under Bush and vice president Dick Cheney, resource extraction – logging, mining, drilling for oil and gas – as often as not were favored over protection of habitat and endangered species. So was carbon-emitting energy production over conservation and “green” renewable energy.

No surprise there, since both Bush and Cheney had been oil men. It was more than symbolic that environmentalists got short shrift in the backroom meetings of Cheney’s energy task force.

But things would be different with a progressive, young Democrat in the White House, enviros thought.

‘A green, dream team’

Just as important to those looking for a change in direction were Obama’s appointments to high environmental offices: Carol Browner, who’d headed the EPA under Bill Clinton, as White House climate and energy policy chief; Lisa Jackson, former head of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, as EPA administrator; former director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and US Senator Ken Salazar as secretary of the Interior; and as secretary of Energy, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu.
Together, they were seen as “a green dream team,” as Gene Karpinski, head of the League of Conservation Voters, put it at the time.

Indeed, things did change – particularly regarding climate change and declared energy policy as it relates to creating jobs and improving the economy. And from the California Bay Delta to the Great Lakes to Chesapeake Bay, the Obama administration pushed new strategies for environmental protection and restoration.

But recently, Obama and his administration have been taking flak from the left on the environment.

This past week, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the US Forest Service for failing to monitor and protect endangered species and habitat in Arizona and New Mexico national forests.

“The big picture for species recovery in southwestern national forests is grim,” said Taylor McKinnon, the group’s public lands campaigns director. “In addition to failing to monitor and protect endangered species while implementing the current forest plans, the Forest Service is aiming to roll back species protections in its new plans. In the long run, that’s a recipe for extinction.”

Another lawsuit

A week earlier, the same organization sued Interior Secretary Salazar for not turning over emails, phone logs, and notes from his meetings with oil-industry lobbyists before the BP oil spill when the administration agreed to more offshore oil and gas drilling.

“We want to know who Salazar was talking to, what was said, and what deals were made,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the organization. “The Obama administration pledged to be open and transparent in its decision-making, but when it comes to meeting with oil industry lobbyists, this administration is as secretive as the Cheney-Bush White House.”

In the Pacific Northwest, environmentalists are urging Obama to not allow the shipping of large equipment up the Columbia and Snake Rivers – habitat for threatened and endangered salmon – to a tar sands oil project in Alberta.

“Canadian tar sands development is one of the largest, most destructive industrial projects on earth,” warns Save Our Wild Salmon, a coalition of conservation groups and businesses.

Meanwhile, some government scientists say they still feel pressure to adjust their work for political considerations.

“We are getting complaints from government scientists now at the same rate we were during the Bush administration,” Jeffrey Ruch, who heads the whistleblower group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, told the Los Angeles Times.

But it is the inability to get comprehensive energy and climate legislation that environmental advocates see as Obama’s biggest failure.

“Obama is the first president in history to articulate in stark terms both the why and how of the sustainable clean energy vision,” writes physicist and author Joseph Romm. “But the question now is whether he really believed what he said.”

Writing in the current issue of Rolling Stone, Tim Dickinson says, “Obama, so far, has shown no urgency on the issue, and little willingness to lead – despite a June poll showing that 76 percent of Americans believe the government should limit climate pollution.”

‘Did Obama kill the climate bill?”

The headline on Josh Harkinson’s piece in Mother Jones reads “Did Obama Kill the Climate Bill?”

“After BP’s well blew out, Obama’s infamously milquetoast address from the Oval Office never connected the disaster with the need for a cap on carbon,” Harkinson writes. “All of this wasn’t for a lack of pressure from his allies. Nine high-profile environmental groups wrote a letter to the president pleading that ‘nothing less than your direct personal involvement’ will break the logjam in the Senate.”

This past week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acknowledged that he didn’t have the votes to pass the kind of cap-and-trade energy reform bill approved by the House a year ago. Instead, Reid is expected to detail a much-slimmed-down energy bill, minus any climate provision that would have capped carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.

Many of Obama’s critics in the environmental community are spring-loaded to sound the alarm – or file a lawsuit – no matter who is in the White House. For some, it’s a good fund-raising tactic.

But for now, activists are finding that the “dream team” they once rejoiced in is not so green.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Big surprise…..DV

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/23/98088/researchers-confirm-subsea-gulf.html
Posted on Fri, Jul. 23, 2010

Sara Kennedy | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: July 24, 2010 01:33:33 PM

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. – Through a chemical fingerprinting process, University of South Florida researchers have definitively linked clouds of underwater oil in the northern Gulf of Mexico to BP’s runaway Deepwater Horizon well – the first direct scientific link between the subsurface oil clouds commonly known as “plumes” and the BP oil spill, USF officials said Friday.

Until now, scientists had circumstantial evidence, but lacked that definitive scientific link.

The announcement came on the same day that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that its researchers have confirmed the existence of the subsea plumes at depths of 3,300 to 4,300 feet below the surface of the Gulf. NOAA said its detection equipment also implicated the BP well in the plumes’ creation.

Together, the two studies confirm what in the early days of the spill was denied by BP and viewed skeptically by NOAA’s chief – that much of the crude that gushed from the Deepwater Horizon well stayed beneath the surface of the water.

“What we have learned completely changes the idea of what an oil spill is,” said chemical oceanographer David Hollander, one of three USF researchers credited with the matching samples of oil taken from the water with samples from the BP well. “It has gone from a two-dimensional disaster to a three-dimensional catastrophe.”

The other scientists involved in making the link, USF said, were biological oceanographer Ernst Peebles and geological oceanographer David Naar.

The finding is important because oil that escaped from the mile-deep, blown-out well had been treated with dispersants, which broke the oil in the water column into tiny droplets, and therefore did not form an oil slick at the surface, said Richard H. Pierce, senior scientist and director of the Center for Ecotoxicology at Sarasota’s Mote Marine Laboratory.

“It’s more readily taken up and absorbed and ingested by marine animals,” he explained.

Although dispersed oil degrades more quickly over the long-run, in the short-term, it poses a more toxic threat to marine life, Pierce said.

“So, we’ve been very concerned, and it is critical USF has verified it,” he said.

The full report was not released Friday, but will be available sometime next week, USF spokeswoman Vickie Chachere said.

BP declined to comment on the USF discovery. “We have only seen media reports, and have not yet seen the report and underlying data,” BP spokesman Phil Cochrane said in an e-mail.

USF scientists found microscopic droplets of biodegraded oil at varying depths beneath the Gulf’s surface, the university said in a statement.

One layer was 100 feet thick; it was found 45 nautical miles north-northeast of the well site, officials said.

The researchers found the plumes after models created by a USF expert in ocean currents, Robert Weisberg, predicted subsurface oil from the Deepwater Horizon well would move toward the north-northeast, USF said.

“The clouds were found near the DeSoto Canyon, a critical area that interacts with Florida’s spawning grounds,” USF said.

The NOAA study made similar findings. According to the report, which was reviewed by 19 scientists known as the Joint Analysis Group, data collected by five research ships deployed in the Gulf from May 19 to June 19 showed oil suspended in the water between 1,000 and 1,300 meters – about 3,280 feet to 4,265 feet.

The NOAA scientists detected the oil by measuring its fluorescence – many of the droplets are too small to detect otherwise – and said that that measurement linked it to the BP well.

The report said the oil had been detected in heaviest concentrations near the BP well and that its concentrations dropped as the ships moved away from the well, but that not enough samples had been taken to determine the full “horizontal extent” of the plumes.

The report also said the impact of the oil on sealife had yet to be determined. Even at low concentrations, the report said, the oil “might be biologically meaningful” because of the length of time fish and other organisms would be exposed to it.

The report also said that scientists had detected lower levels of dissolved oxygen in the water at depths below 3,280 feet, but that they couldn’t determine why the levels were low with certainty. They said the levels were not so low as to be fatal to sealife.

Steven Murawski, chief scientist for NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, said the data confirm that the subsea plumes of oil were the result of the Deepwater Horizon well.

“That’s a real smoking gun, as far as we’re concerned,” he said. “It really is a flow” from the well.

In May, when scientists first reported that they had discovered oil beneath the Gulf’s surface and blamed it on the Deepwater Horizon spill, they were denounced by both BP and NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco.

BP CEO Tony Hayward denied that such plumes existed and Lubchenco called the reports “misleading, premature and, in some cases, inaccurate.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

By Coral Davenport
July 23, 2010

SENATE PULLS PLUG ON ENERGY/CLIMATE BILL. HERE’S HOW IT FELL APART – “It would seem the stars had been aligned like never before for climate legislation. But by Thursday, the White House’s biggest energy and environmental initiative sat in tatters, relegated to an unknown election-year abyss after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he didn’t yet have 60 votes and would instead move to the lowest hanging energy fruit. Exactly when the Senate legislation came apart will now be open to historical interpretation – but the blame game has already begun.” http://politi.co/aZbpan

JOIN THE DEBATE – In Energy Arena, POLITICO asks: How have the political fortunes of Govs. Haley Barbour, Bobby Jindal and Charlie Crist been affected by the Gulf oil spill? Have they helped or hurt their chances for higher office? Join the conversation at: http://www.politico.com/arena/energy/

Good Friday morning and welcome to Morning Energy, and the aftermath of yet another failed Senate climate change bill – the chance many advocates say was the last, best shot of getting a bill through for the foreseeable future. What comes next? Email thoughts on the new climate landscape to cdavenport@politico.com

AMERICA PUNTS ON CLIMATE; CHINA ACTS – Chinese officials have decided to move ahead with a carbon cap-and-trade system. http://bit.ly/duKY4A

FINGER-POINTING – No surprise that Ds blame Rs, Rs point to Ds’ fractured caucus, advocates blame election-year timeline and chide Obama for not pushing the issue. But here’s a new one: White House blames enviros: As Darren reports, ” One exasperated administration official on Thursday lambasted the environmentalists – led by the Environmental Defense Fund – for failing to effectively lobby GOP senators. ‘They didn’t deliver a single Republican,’ the official told POLITICO. ‘They spent like $100 million and they weren’t able to get a single Republican convert on the bill.'”

THE BILL THAT WILL go to the floor: will have at its core a package of provisions aimed at tightening offshore drilling safety regulations and codifying the restructuring of the Interior Department, plus the Home Star building efficiency program, a clutch of provisions to boost natural gas vehicles, and full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Each of these pieces has already moved through committee or been co-sponsored with bipartisan support, and none represent a major change in energy policy — so it’s expected the package as a whole will move through fairly quickly. Final details aren’t yet available – Reid’s staff will spend the weekend stitching together pieces from the existing bills, and we’re told reporters will be briefed on the final product on Monday.

** A message from America’s Natural Gas Alliance: Natural gas is helping small businesses grow across the country, meaning more jobs for hard-working Americans. See how natural gas production in Texas has helped Mindy’s family trucking business. http://bit.ly/9jsZjC **

STILL NOT GIVING UP – At least in spirit, are disappointed Senate Democrats. It’s no surprise that the ever-passionate Kerry and dogged Joe Lieberman say they refuse to give up the ghost on climate – both now characterize Reid’s dumping of climate as a new time window to win over electric utilities before bringing up a power-plant-only bill this fall. But even Midwestern and coal-state moderates like Ohio’s Sherrod Brown and Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey said they want to keep pushing, despite the odds. “I think a lot of people are disappointed. But we still have time this summer to keep working and lining up votes, and September as well, and we just have to keep working,” Casey tells Morning Energy. “What the leader has proposed is a series of important steps but I think it’s still only one chapter. We’ve got some bigger chapters to go and we’ve got to work to try to get the votes, work with the White House, work to get votes on the other side. Š One thing we can’t do is let this be the end of the discussion. None of us will accept that. We’re still going to do awful lot of climate and energy work between now and [August recess]. The leader can go though the bill he’s got but we’re going to work on this. I don’t see that as starting in September.”

GLIMMER OF HOPE? – The Hill reports on a July 19 draft outline of agreement on key points between utilities and major environmental groups, whose earlier failure to reach a compromise had seemed to doom prospects for a bill. http://bit.ly/9Xdfrv

MORE PAINFUL IRONY – A staffer notes that one of the biggest losers in Thursday’s news was John Kerry, who over the past year has devoted untold hours and effort to the cause of a climate change bill, only to see it thrown under the bus in the face of midterm elections. One of Thursday’s biggest winners: T. Boone Pickens, the oil magnate who financed the Swift Boat ads during Kerry’s presidential campaign. As he worked to build support for his climate bill, Kerry made a tremendous diplomatic gesture in reaching out to Pickens, and promised to include pieces of the “Pickens Plan” to promote natural gas-fueled vehicles in a comprehensive climate change bill. In the end, Reid jettisoned the big energy and climate package, and instead will offer a narrow spill bill bundled with cherry-picked energy provisions – including pieces of the Pickens Plan. So Pickens’ provisions are slated to move through the Senate with relative ease next week – on a bill sponsored by the Senate Majority Leader, no less – while the work Kerry staked his political comeback on molders on the cutting-room floor.

NEW BATTLEGROUND: RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY – Groups on both sides of the debate tell Morning Energy that while the fight for carbon caps seems lost for the year, they’re still marshalling their forces to debate the other key energy policy dumped from the package: the renewable electricity standard. Renewable power companies are now lobbying Democrats to introduce Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s 15 percent standard as a floor amendment to the spill bill next week. “It is incredibly urgent for the industry, the head of a major U.S. renewable energy company tells Morning Energy. “We believe we have 60 votes for that, probably more.” It remains to be seen whether Reid will even allow amendments to be offered next week. But a fossil-fuel lobbyist tells Morning Energy that if it doesn’t come up next week, their industry is gearing up to fight it in the fall. Meanwhile, a former Senate Democratic aide closely involved in the climate negotiations says that if Dems are willing to be flexible on the definition of the electricity standard – allowing clean coal and possibly nuclear energy to count under the mandate, which Republicans such as Richard Lugar and Lindsey Graham support -there could still be room for a compromise bill this fall. “In the shadow of the ballot box, it’s either a bigger tent or fold up tent,” said the former aide.

SPILL SITE EVACUATED AS TROPICAL STORM BONNIE APPROACHES – From Thad Allen at midnight: “Due to the risk that Tropical Storm Bonnie poses to the safety of the nearly 2,000 people responding to the BP oil spill at the well site, many of the vessels and rigs will be preparing to move out of harm’s way beginning tonight. This includes the rig drilling the relief well that will ultimately kill the well, as well as other vessels needed for containment. Some of the vessels may be able to remain on site, but we will err on the side of safety Š While these actions may delay the effort to kill the well for several days, the safety of the individuals at the well site is our highest concern. We are staging our skimming vessels and other assets in a manner that will allow us to promptly re-start oil mitigation efforts as soon as the storm passes and we can ensure the safety of our personnel.”

SALAZAR PLEDGES TO LIMIT INTERIOR’S REVOLVING DOOR – WaPo reports: “Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told lawmakers Thursday that he will use his regulatory authority to impose strict new rules to remedy the revolving-door problems in his department Š His statement came after Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) asked about a Washington Post article that reported that dozens of former Interior officials had crossed over into the oil industry and that three out of four industry lobbyists had once worked for the federal government. The rate is more than double the norm in Washington, where industries recruit about 30 percent of their lobbyists from the government, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. With more than 600 registered lobbyists, the industry has among the biggest and most powerful contingents in Washington, The Post reported.” http://bit.ly/bmLmkx

HOUSE PANEL VOTES TO HALT OFFSHORE DRILLING LEASING – And to boost funds for climate change research. CQ story: http://bit.ly/9awnbH

Go to Morning Energy Now >> http://www.politico.com/morningenergy

Special thanks to Richard Charter

July 22, 2010

http://www.examiner.com/x-58009-Oil-Spill-Recovery-Examiner~y2010m7d22-Oil-spill-updatl-EPA-whistleblower-speaks-on-Corexit-says-dolphins-people-hemorrhaging–video

http://www.democracynow.org/embed_show_v2/300/2010/7/20/story/epa_whistleblower_accuses_agency_of_covering

EPA whistleblower Hugh Kaufman spoke on Democracy Now about the BP coverup regarding Corexit and the effects it is having on the Gulf of Mexico and the life forms that it comes in contact with. He also alleges that the EPA is covering up the toxic effects that will result from using nearly 2 million gallons of the chemical dispersant since the start of the catastrophic oil spill.

Hugh Kaufman is a former US Air Force Captain and joined the EPA in its beginning stages in 1971. He also helped write the laws that are on the federal books regarding the disposal, storage, handling and treatment of solid and hazardous waste. Though the EPA has approved the use of Corexit as an oil dispersant, Hugh Kaufman alleges that it is extremely toxic, dangerous and shows proof that the chemical was linked to many health problems when used in the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Hugh Kaufman also believes that BP’s conspiracy includes using the chemical dispersant to dissolve as much oil as possible to prevent the public from ever truly knowing how vast the spill actually is. Kaufman also alleges that people who are coming in contact with Corexit now, are suffering internal bleeding and hemorrhaging. You may see the full report in the video player, but here is a clip.

“… Consequently, we have people, wildlife, we have dolphins that are hemorrhaging. People who work near it are hemorrhaging internally. And that’s what dispersants are supposed to do. EPA now is taking the position that they really don’t know how dangerous it is, even though if you read the label, it tells you how dangerous it is.

And, for example, in the Exxon Valdez case, people who worked with dispersants, most of them are dead now. The average death age is around fifty. It’s very dangerous, and it’s an an economic protector of BP, not an environmental protector of the public.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter