Political Climate: May 2008 Archives

Chicago residents can chow down on foie gras once again, after the city's mayor rolled back a two-year-old ban on the buttery delicacy. I've got a piece up at Political Climate arguing that there are lessons here for greens:

Probably activists’ biggest mistake was pursuing a blanket ban on the sale and consumption of foie gras, rather than a more specific ban on inhumane production techniques. That shifted the blame to the consumer rather than the producer, and put greens in the uncomfortably paternalistic position of trying to dictate what people should and shouldn’t be allowed to eat; it also gave farmers and restauranteurs little incentive to explore the various ethical and humane alternatives to traditional production methods.

Fighting for a blanket ban also led campaigners to dismiss evidence that while foie gras factory farms are predictably horrific, small-scale producers are usually fairly humane. The French Institute for Agricultural Research found no increase in ducks’ stress hormones immediately before or after force-feeding sessions, for example; the American Veterinary Medical Association also examined the industry, and determined that birds in US foie gras farms weren’t in any significant distress or pain.

More here.

John McCain is selling his new environmental policy in Oregon today. I've posted some thoughts over at Political Climate:

McCain pitched his plan - essentially a rehash of the cap-and-trade system he proposed back in 2003 - as a third way between the outright climate denial of the Bush years and the more ambitious climate strategies offered by his opponents. “One extreme thinks high taxes and crippling regulation is the solution; another denies the problem even exists,” he announced in a campaign ad accompanying yesterday’s speech. “There's a better way.”

...

McCain might have done better to propose a straight-up carbon tax. That would have sliced through the “crippling regulation” of a cap-and-trade system, and allowed him to present himself as a straight-talking maverick opposed to hidden taxes, big government, and pork-barrel politics. Instead, he offered up a heavily diluted version of the plans already set out by his Democratic rivals: good enough to convince a few independent voters, perhaps, but hardly worthy of a politician who used to be a genuine environmental hero.

More here.

The EPA is considering allowing unlimited amounts of perchlorate - a chemical nasty derived from rocket fuel - in US drinking water. It's not the best idea: perchlorate has been linked to metabolic problems in adults, and to developmental disorders in children and fetuses. I've posted more details over at Political Climate:

Having failed to safeguard our water supplies, the EPA is now dragging its heels over providing a solution. Benjamin Grumbles, the agency’s top water-safety official, told Congress this week that the EPA might not decide whether to begin regulating perchlorate until the end of the year - and that even then there was “a distinct possibility” that the agency would stick to its guns and refuse to limit the amount of perchlorate in America’s drinking water.

The EPA says it needs to give its scientists more time to figure out whether perchlorate is actually harmful, and at what levels. That sounds reasonable - but given the agency’s usual disregard for scientific opinion, some greens believe that other factors may be at work behind the scenes. Prime suspect: the Pentagon, which has been lobbying against a federal perchlorate standard for years, hoping to avoid an expensive cleanup of its military and aerospace facilities.

Read more here.

Alaskan residents and green activists have launched another legal challenge to the Bush administration's efforts to open the Chukchi Sea to oil exploration. I've written it up for Plenty's Political Climate blog:

According to their complaint, federal officials gave oil companies the go-ahead to use powerful acoustic devices to test for seismic activity - without waiting for legally mandated reports on the tests’ potential environmental impact.

The tests - which give a whole new meaning to the phrase “oil boom” - involve firing massive air-guns at the Arctic seabed, creating a noise ten times louder than a rocket launch. The din, which can carry for hundreds of miles, is repeated every 10 to 15 seconds, sometimes for weeks or months at a time.

That can have a devastating impact on marine wildlife, particularly mammals like whales, walrus and seals: Nearby animals can be permanently deafened, and thousands more interrupt their feeding and migratory patterns to escape the noise. The Chukchi Sea - home to tens of thousands of marine mammals, including several endangered species of whale - is particularly vulnerable: Its bad weather and choppy waters can make it almost impossible for seismic survey ships to spot and steer clear of marine mammals.

Read the rest here.

Nancy Pelosi's efforts to give Congress an environmental overhaul are going slower than she'd hoped, thanks to foot-dragging lawmakers and congressional bureaucracy. I've posted some details over at Political Climate:

Last year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a major new initiative aimed at turning Congress into a model of environmental best practice. Some of the changes were small, simple things: Meeting-rooms had their lights rigged to motion detectors, vending machines were ordered to be turned off at night, and a bike share program was set up for staffers. Even the House cafeteria got a face-lift: Freedom fries were swapped for organic arugula and free-range eggs, and styrofoam containers gave way to biodegradable plates and cutlery.

Other changes were more significant - and more controversial. Efforts to install energy-efficient spotlights to illuminate the Capitol dome met with fierce opposition from Republicans, who called the $671,900 project a “ridiculous boondoggle”. The decision to spend almost $90,000 on carbon offsets nearly sparked a full-blown inquiry. And only this week, lawmakers threw an almighty strop over new rules requiring them to trade their taxpayer-funded SUVs and luxury gas-guzzlers for more fuel-efficient models.

More here.