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.

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.

It's unclear quite what the candidates hoped to gain from their Fox interviews. In 2004, only 7% of Fox fans voted for John Kerry, making the network's audience a more reliably Republican constituency than gun owners, white evangelical Christians or even self-defined conservatives. Could it be that the candidates are taking a cue from Operation Chaos and hoping to pick up crossover votes from Republicans whose own party's nomination was wrapped up long ago?

More likely, perhaps, is that the candidates' Fox-fest was designed to send a message to the Democratic superdelegates. An appearance on Fox was bound to be taken as a snub by the netroots - and arguably that's no bad thing, if you're a left-leaning candidate desperate to stake out a claim to the centre ground. In an election that looks likely to be fought and won among independents and moderates, it's more important than ever for Obama and Clinton to convince superdelegates that they are ready and able to reach out to swing voters. Even if that means sleeping with the enemy.

More here.

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.

That means that of the presidential hopefuls, only Barack Obama wants the gas tax to remain in place. He’s learned the hard way that gas-tax cuts don’t work: In 2000, with gas prices weighing in at a whopping $2 a gallon, he supported the Illinois Senate’s move to slash the state’s 6.25 percent gas tax.

The state’s moratorium was politically popular, but achieved almost nothing. Gas prices fell by just 3 percent, meaning that a hefty chunk of the tax relief went straight to oil companies. Less than a third of Illinois motorists said the tax cut had made them better off. And over six months, the state lost $175 million in revenues, prompting then-Gov. George Ryan to beg lawmakers to reinstate the tax. (In the end, Obama was among those who voted to restore the tax.)

Clinton may not have Obama’s experience, but she can hardly claim ignorance of the problems gas taxes entail. Back in 2000, she made her opposition to gas-tax cuts a centerpiece of her Senate campaign, saying her rival’s plan for a 4.3-cent cut would be “a bad deal for New York and a potential bonanza for the oil companies,” and added that “the gas tax is one of the few exceptions where we actually get more money back than we send to Washington.”

More here.

One Sunday afternoon last month, 17-year-old Los Angeles resident Jamiel Shaw was walking home from the mall when a white sedan pulled up next to him. Two Latino men leaned out and asked Jamiel - a clean-cut high school football star with hopes of winning a scholarship to Stanford - what gang he belonged to. When he couldn't give an answer, one of the two men shot him dead.

That terrible, senseless act of violence has catapulted LA's battle with street gangs back into the public gaze - and sparked fresh debate about the way the City of Angels deals with its huge immigrant population. That's because Jamiel's alleged killer, a 19-year-old named Pedro Espinoza, is believed to have been an illegal alien - and, to make matters worse, had reportedly been released from county jail just a day before the brutal attack.

Quite rightly, that's prompted soul-searching at the LA police department, most of it focused on the application of Special Order 40, a regulation prohibiting police officers from stopping people for the sole reason of learning their immigration status. A number of police officers - including one who moonlights as a National Review blogger - say the rule is confusing and leads officers to actively avoid discovering the immigration status of known criminals.

Read the rest here.

Everyone agrees that renewable energy is the way forward; unfortunately, neither lawmakers nor ordinary folk seem willing to give renewables a chance to get off the ground. Wind power made up almost a third of the new energy production in the US last year, according to the American Wind Energy Association, creating 10,000 green-collar jobs - but even with these changes, it’s predicted that by 2025, less than 5 percent of US energy will come from renewable sources.

That’s partly the fault of the feds, who last year failed to push through national standards for renewables as part of the energy bill. Worse still, national lawmakers have been reluctant to extend tax breaks that make it profitable to build and install wind farms; the incentives are set to expire at the end of this year, and developers say wind-turbine production will suffer unless Congress passes an extension by Memorial Day.

Read the rest here.

It’s easy to be cynical about McCain’s motives: Taking the sting out of gas prices in the run-up to the November election would be sure to win the Arizona senator brownie points with cash-strapped voters. It might also allow him to steer the debate away from economic issues, while dampening down resentment over the domestic repercussions of the war in Iraq.

But regardless of McCain’s private reasons for wanting to give the American people a tax holiday, his plans are bad policy. The money raised from gas taxes is needed for essential road and bridge repairs – hardly an area in which we can afford to skimp. With the federal highway account already set to finish next year $3.2 billion in the red, even truckers agree that we need higher, not lower, gas taxes in order to keep America moving.

Read more here.

... even if Bush’s change of heart is genuine, it’s unlikely that he’ll be able to make much headway in the few months he has left. Today’s Times story was probably a trial balloon, floated by the White House in order to see whether pundits and lawmakers would fall in line; and so far, things don’t look promising. Republican lawmakers have already reportedly rebuffed the President’s proposals, arguing that pushing for new legislation would play into the hands of Democrats and give them the green light to push for sweeping environmental reforms. Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, have little desire to help Bush reinvent himself as an environmental crusader - and are rightly skeptical about his willingness to put green issues before business interests. More importantly, they’re convinced that come November they’ll have a far greener president in the White House, and probably an expanded majority in Congress. In that context, it makes sense for Dems to rebuff Bush’s overtures, wait for him to leave office, and then work with his successor to pass meaningful and far-reaching environmental reforms.

Unfortunately, it’s far from clear that the Republican rank and file will be willing to join in the greening of their party. GOP lawmakers held a closed-door meeting this week in a bid to reach agreement about the way forward - but utterly failed to reach anything like a consensus. Instead, the meeting underscored the rift between the party’s McCain-Warner wing, which takes climate change reasonably seriously, and the Bush-Inhofe flank, which tends toward apathy and outright climate-change denial.

Even if the GOP does manage to find a single voice it won’t make much difference. Republicans can’t out-green the Democrats without scaring off their own conservative base - so their rebranding is aimed not at saving the planet but at becoming just green enough to blunt the Democrats’ environmental advantage with independent voters. That means we can expect to see the GOP paying more lip-service to environmental issues - but stopping well short of supporting the kind of substantive changes we so badly need.

Read more here.

If the Bush administration isn't prepared to help Haiti on humanitarian grounds, it ought to consider the practical advantages of doing so. Calling a moratorium on deportations would spare the overstretched Haitian government the burden of dealing with returned deportees. More importantly, it would provide the country with a stable source of income from remittances. At present, cash sent home by immigrants makes up more than a fifth of Haiti's GDP. Making it easier for Haitians to work in the US without fear of deportation would be a cheap, easy way to further shore up the country's economy.

That would be good news for Haitians, who need all the help they can get. It would also be good for America. After all, Haiti is a poor, populous nation just a boat ride from Florida. The US has a vested interest in staving off its southern neighbour's collapse, if only to keep the current influx of refugees from turning into a full-fledged exodus. Offering protected status to those Haitians already in the US would, at least, be a step in the right direction.

Read the rest here.