John McCain gave a campaign speech in New Jersey today in which he touched on environmental issues and talked up his record in that area. "There is no doubt our environment is globally challenged," McCain said in a stop at the Liberty Science Center in Jersey City, N.J. "I'm proud of my environmental record."

But as some enviros in the state were quick to point out, that record is mixed at best (take, for example, his lifetime League of Conservation Voters score of 24 percent and his 2007 score of zero). "His words say one thing, his record puts him in lockstep with the Bush administration and its dismantling of environmental programs," New Jersey Sierra Club director Jeff Tittel told Newsday.

The speech today was the first of several environmental addresses planned over the next week. On Monday, McCain is slated to give a big speech at Vestas Energy, which manufactures wind turbines, in Portland, Ore. He's expected to discuss climate change and the need to reduce dependence on carbon-based fuels. On Tuesday, there are several events planned in the Seattle area, including a roundtable with local leaders and a hike of Rattlesnake Mountain, according to reports. Grist will have more McCain's green week as it develops.

The population of the earth is expected to pass 6,666,666,666 today.

Mining accidents and deaths cause a flurry of press coverage and then fade into our collective memory. But for a moment, let's think back to those horrific weeks last year as we waited to find out the fate of the trapped miners in Crandall Canyon ... only to be bitterly disappointed.

Now look:

The general manager and possibly other senior staff at the Crandall Canyon Mine near Huntington, Utah, where 9 miners died in August 2007, hid information from federal mining officials that could have prevented the disaster and should face criminal charges, according to a Congressional investigation whose results were released Thursday.

And while we're at it:

Missed the Coachella Express but still on board for a summerful of sustainable-ish music fests?

Check out Rothbury, dubbed the "party with a purpose." The festival, which has attracted an impressive lineup including Dave Matthews Band, Widespread Panic, John Mayer, Snoop Dogg, and Modest Mouse, will be held Fourth of July weekend in Rothbury, Mich.

According to their website, Rothbury's goal is to "harness the unique energy of the live music community into a durable social movement toward an important cause" -- that cause being climate change and clean energy alternatives. How are they planning to rock such a hefty mission statement? They say they're aiming for a near-zero waste event. (Something I find hard to believe, having seen the wastelands left after such an event ...) But A for effort.

They're also committed to the usual greening tools: composting, recycling, clean energy, and carbon offsets (supported in part by "green ticket" sales). In addition to the offsets, though, they'll be outfitting a local high school with free solar panels.

One other unique initiative I'm curious about is an effort to eliminate nasty butts ... cigarette butts, that is. They'll be handing out "personal ashtrays" for festival-goers to use post-smoke; I'm imagining they'll be something like this.

Looking for something less jam-band and more Cirque du Soleil?

Suppose the leaders of this country were wise enough to put a moratorium on traditional coal (the most urgent climate policy needed, as discussed here)? How will we meet our steadily growing demand for carbon-free power over the next decade? And to get on the 450 ppm path, we don't just need to stop U.S. emissions from rising -- we should return to 1990 levels (or lower) by 2020.

Nuclear

Nuclear is an obvious possibility, beloved of conservative Francophiles like McCain and Gingrich, but energy realists understand that it is very unlikely new nuclear plants could deliver many kilowatt-hours of electricity by 2018, let alone affordable kwh. Indeed, back in August, Tulsa World reported:

American Electric Power Co. isn't planning to build any new nuclear power plants because delays will push operational starts to 2020, CEO Michael Morris said Tuesday ...

Builders would also have to queue for certain parts and face "realistic" costs of about $4,000 a kilowatt, he said ...

"I'm not convinced we'll see a new nuclear station before probably the 2020 timeline," Morris said.

And that in spite of the amazing subsidies and huge loan guarantees for nuclear power in the 2005 energy bill (see here).

Via Ezra, a vegetarian proclaims his normality.

The following is a guest essay from Michael T. Klare, author of the new book Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet. It was originally published on Tom's Dispatch, which has graciously permitted us to use it here.

-----

Nineteen years ago, the fall of the Berlin Wall effectively eliminated the Soviet Union as the world's other superpower. Yes, the USSR as a political entity stumbled on for another two years, but it was clearly an ex-superpower from the moment it lost control over its satellites in Eastern Europe.

Less than a month ago, the United States similarly lost its claim to superpower status when a barrel crude oil roared past $110 on the international market, gasoline prices crossed the $3.50 threshold at American pumps, and diesel fuel topped $4.00. As was true of the USSR following the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. will no doubt continue to stumble on like the superpower it once was; but as the nation's economy continues to be eviscerated to pay for its daily oil fix, it, too, will be seen by increasing numbers of savvy observers as an ex-superpower-in-the-making.

That the fall of the Berlin Wall spelled the erasure of the Soviet Union's superpower status was obvious to international observers at the time. After all, the USSR visibly ceased to exercise dominion over an empire (and an associated military-industrial complex) encompassing nearly half of Europe and much of Central Asia. The relationship between rising oil prices and the obliteration of America's superpower status is, however, hardly as self-evident. So let's consider the connection.

Dry hole superpower

The fact is, America's wealth and power has long rested on the abundance of cheap petroleum. The United States was, for a long time, the world's leading producer of oil, supplying its own needs while generating a healthy surplus for export.

For months now, the 2007 farm bill has been in limbo, tied up in reconciliation negotiations between the House and the Senate.

On Thursday, the bicameral Farm Bill Conference Report agreed on a final proposal. The latest version will go to the larger House and Senate next week for approval; if all goes well, it will finally go to President Bush's desk.

But since this wouldn't be the 2007 farm bill without a final dose of drama, negotiations seem far from over. "The President will veto this bill," USDA chair Ed Schafer bluntly declared in a Thursday afternoon communique.

The sticking point is subsidy reform, or lack thereof. "This legislation lacks meaningful farm program reform and expands the size and scope of government," Schafer stated.

Many sustainable-ag and rural advocates would cheer a Bush veto. On the Center for Rural Affairs blog, Dan Owens recently laid out their case:

We will have the opportunity to fight again, and ... I have real hope that we can do better, that we can win more, that we can get a farm bill that is better than the one about to pass Congress. And we can try again in 2009. But if the bill becomes law, we will have to wait until 2013.

Others, however, disagree. They argue that the bill contains valuable provisions that need to be passed -- small victories that will be surrendered if farm policy reverts to the 2002 farm bill.

Below I'll try to sketch out what this latest version contains. I'll also be trying to get movers and shakers in the sustainable-ag/food-justice world to give their perspectives.

"Are there negatives associated? Sure. But 50,000 people die per year in our highway system, and you don't think about that when you get into your car. And you shouldn't."

-- Fred Palmer, senior vice president for governmental affairs at Peabody Energy (formerly Peabody Coal), responding to a question about air and water pollution from coal

The fading hopes for the Lieberman-Warner climate bill have all but ended (see E&E News, "Sponsors lower expectations for Lieberman-Warner bill," $ub. req'd, reprinted below).

Serious climate legislation had been in critical condition for some months (see "Boucher lets conservatives block House climate bill" and "Don't hold your breath on Lieberman-Warner passing in 2008."). Doctors and family members finally pulled the plug this week, and the patient appeared to lose all vital signs. The coroner listed "apathy" as the cause of death.

The only hope for revival now rests in the faint possibility that Lieberman-Warner turns out to be either an immortal cop, a vampire private detective, or possibly a relentless, indestructible killing machine from the future that had taken on the guise of so-so climate legislation in an effort to fulfill its mission of ruining life on this planet for Homo "sapiens." (Note to self: That was a bit harsh.)

More seriously, too many senators simply wanted to do too much watering down of L-W, plus we have the little-known provision of the Constitution that says all pieces of legislation aimed at sparing billions of people from unimaginable misery must receive 60 votes. The messy details are below:

And Barack is winning ...

This post is by ClimateProgress guest blogger Kari Manlove, fellows assistant at the Center for American Progress.

-----

The fact that our country has a National Environmental Policy Act means we should have a national environmental policy, and any national environmental policy is bound to take into consideration global warming, right?

Wrong on two counts.

The U.S. is sorely lacking an updated environmental policy. It's been over a decade and counting. With the EPA as example, and based on its condition as of late (see here and here), the climate's looking grim.

As for a cohesive national policy that takes into account global warming's causes and impacts? Think again. States have been infinitely more active than our federal government (and we thank them).

Ado, ado, ado. It's been a while since our last sports roundup, so with no further ado:

Baseball: Major League Baseball was all about Earth Day. The Seattle Mariners hosted the league's first carbon-neutral game, while the uniforms of the Boston Red Sox displayed a pair of red socks in a green recycling logo. (Reaction from Grist Prez -- and Sox fan -- Chip Giller: "This is butt ugly! And what does the recycling sign have to do with energy issues?") Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Phillies have bought 20 million kilowatt-hours of renewable-energy certificates. The L.A. Dodgers have unveiled a new stadium plan that includes a dedicated bus lane -- and two new parking garages. And toxic soil from the excavation site for the Minnesota Twins' new ballpark gets dumped by the river. If the Atlantic League of Professional Baseball is more your style, the Long Island Ducks are going green too.

Basketball: Basketball star Steve Nash is the source of perhaps my favorite quote ever: "When the Suns get hot, that's good. But when the earth gets hot, that's bad." Ha! He's also endorsed by Nike and stars in this ad for their recycled shoe:

For nearly two months now, Sen. Clinton has been outperforming the closing polls in primary state after primary state. And no one can possibly say that Sen. Obama had a good past three weeks, with the reemergence of Rev. Wright. Yet this time, he outperformed the recent polls in both states.

This suggests that in the only other big issue to rise in the last week of the campaign -- the gas tax holiday -- Obama did not lose votes taking the principled position. As I (and many others) have blogged, a gas tax holiday would most likely benefit the oil companies more than the the average consumer. Also, it sends a terrible message about future climate policies (namely that some weak-kneed president might roll back carbon prices the first time the economy hit a rough patch after a cap-and-trade system was passed) -- see "A gas tax holiday would be cynical and indefensible."

Global Oneness Project has finished a great new series of interviews with Brahm Ahmadi, co-founder/director of People's Grocery. Their food justice work is crucial to Oakland: like many cities, there are usually lots more opportunities to buy beer or smokes on every block than fresh, healthy fruits and veggies. Check out this inspiring 8-minute film to get some new ideas for how we can reconnect urban populations and the planet through food. The sidebar clips are great, too, as are all the short films on this site I've viewed.

Goldman Sachs' Arjun N. Murti said this in a May 5 report:

The possibility of $150-$200 per barrel seems increasingly likely over the next 6-24 months, though predicting the ultimate peak in oil prices as well as the remaining duration of the upcycle remains a major uncertainty.

That would mean gasoline prices of $5 to $6 a gallon. Unless, of course, we permanently suspend the gasoline tax, in which case gasoline prices would only be $5 to $6 a gallon.

Why should we listen to Murti? Well, back in 2005, when prices averaged under $60 a barrel, he was one of the few Wall Street analysts who predicted oil could soon hit $105 a barrel -- or higher if we don't take the right actions quickly:

Viewed through a wide lens, the world's troubles seem overwhelming: climate change, pointless war, spreading hunger, surging food and energy prices, etc. There's a tendency to seek big-brush answers to these vast problems, to ask: what's The Solution? Failing inevitably to find it -- much less implement it -- we plunge deeper into despair and political impotence.

Of course, taking a broad view of the world is critically important. But that perspective may be better at providing fodder for analysis than it is at delivering real answers. Our problems may be so big precisely because we tend to think so big. The real action may be in small things; the real solution might be in lots of little solutions.

I got to thinking about this after reading an excellent New York Times piece by Tracie McMillan on a topic dear to my heart: urban farming. Writes McMillan:

I was on NPR talking about bisphenol A (that nasty chemical all up in our plastics). Audio is here.

I expect these questions will be forthcoming:

Do you always sound a bit froggy? No, I was a wee bit sick.

Do you always make up rhymes on the spot? Yes. Yes, I do.

Has the oil industry borrowed the (laughable) tagline of presidential candidate John McCain? As Fox Business reported last Friday:

The American Petroleum Institute took out a full-page ad in USA Today, and other major media were tapped this week to provide "straight talk on earnings." The earnings that need "straight talk": ExxonMobil's $11 billion quarterly profit, and Chevron's $5.2 billion quarterly profit.

(Note to Big Oil: When Fox doesn't give your spin favorable coverage, you've definitely become the Britney Spears of industries.)

This is a guess essay from Richard L. Revesz, Dean of New York University School of Law and co-author, with Michael A. Livermore, of Retaking Rationality: How Cost-Benefit Analysis Can Better Protect the Environment and Our Health, published this month by Oxford University Press.

-----

Failing the cost-benefit test

The R. Gallagher coal-fired power plant in Indiana emits over 50,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per year. Sulfur dioxide is a major component of particulate matter -- a form of pollution known to cause adverse cardiovascular and respiratory health effects. Sulfur dioxide also mixes with other pollution in the atmosphere to form acid rain. As a result of these adverse health effects, the Office of Management and Budget estimates that each ton of sulfur dioxide released into the atmosphere imposes $7,300 in costs on the American public. This means that the R. Gallagher facility imposes over $370 million worth of costs each year.

Environmentalists have fought for years to clean up or shut down dirty power plants like R. Gallagher. According to an analysis by the Environmental Integrity Project, the dirtiest fifty plants account for 40 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, but only 13.7 percent of the electric generation. If we cleaned up the worst of the worst, we would make tremendous progress in improving the quality of the nation's air.

What makes the existence of plants like R. Gallagher so galling is that there is absolutely no reason why they should be allowed to pollute the way they do. Given the massive social costs imposed by plants like R. Gallagher, it makes basic economic sense to invest in pollution control technology -- or even build an entirely new efficient plant next door and shut the facility down entirely.

The Bush administration has had almost eight years to fix the problem of R. Gallagher. Despite its professed allegiance to the cost-benefit principles that reveal pollution from the plant as an economic disaster, the administration has done nothing to stop it. Congress, which contains many ostensible fans of cost-benefit analysis as well, hasn't closed the grandfathering loophole in the Clean Air Act that keeps R. Gallagher in business. When tougher environmental regulation is so clearly backed by sound economic analysis, the only explanation for the policy gap is a failure of the political process. This is not an ideological question; it is not a question of competing values. R. Gallagher, and similar polluting plants, stand as perfect monuments to a political system that has failed the American public.