"I'm the owner, not the driver, so this is going to be interesting to say the least."

Indeed:

When the news broke 15 years ago about an idealistic young man who starved to death in the Alaskan wilderness, I reacted badly.

Plenty of folks, myself included, go alone into the wild and emerge unscathed; in fact, restored to Muirean health and sanity. The national fascination with Chris McCandless' sad end seemed morbid to me -- a morality tale told by the comfortable to justify their easy, unexamined lives.

I still think a sick fascination is part of what made Jon Krakauer's book Into the Wild a bestseller. But I confess I have read only the excerpt from it published over a decade ago in Outside magazine, which may not do the book justice. It was somewhat misleadingly subtitled "How Christopher McCandless Lost His Way in the Wilds," and mostly focused on the mistakes he made, his tragic death.

Many people who heard of this story didn't want to take time to follow a reckless youth. I was one of them. But then I saw the movie, and I saw the young actor playing Chris McCandless make him become the man he wanted to be -- "Alexander Supertramp."

He had an extraordinary life; giving away his inheritance, burning his cash, walking off into the desert. He wanted meaning, more than anything. You could question his sanity, but not his sincerity. And nearly everyone he met fell in love with him, one way or another.

OK, maybe it's a good thing that the morally-challenged senator is on the other side of the debate. He recently said:

My position is perfectly clear: a cap and trade system is obsolete in its approach to green house gas reductions, it has not worked, and I do not see it working.

Yes a very good position for a delayer, since a carbon tax is a political nonstarter (and dubious for other reasons), while a technology-only strategy can't do the job.

David linked to the Reuters report about China's refusal to accept binding emissions caps in any international agreement. On the topic of China and climate change, last week I got some face time with the head of the World Bank's energy unit in Beijing, Dr. Zhao. Too much for one blog post, but here are some highlights:

According to his research, the World Bank's go-to guy on these matters believes: "It will be difficult or even impossible for China to reduce CO2 emissions in absolute terms." Depressing conclusion. As he saw it, "The question now is, what can be down to reduce China's growth rate [of CO2 emissions]?"

While refusing to sign international agreements on carbon caps, Beijing has issued some fairly ambitious goals of its own. One is to have 15 percent of energy come from renewable sources by 2020. Of course, whether this target is based in reality is another question. As Dr. Zhao told me, "In most other countries, you do the analysis first, then set goals. In China, you set the goal first, then you do the research and set the policy to try to achieve it." Translation: the temptation to fudge numbers to reach preordained conclusions is dangerously high.

Investigators found that fisherman caught twice their legal quota of bluefin tuna in European waters this year, despite an early closure to the season due to the stocks' precipitous decline ...

... a trout farm in Nova Scotia was torn apart by Tropical Storm Noel, freeing an estimated 500,000 fish and causing $1 million in damages ...

... endangered humpback and fin whales swam hundreds of miles north of their usual habitats in search of colder waters. "All signs point to global warming," said an advocate ...

... Korean scientists successfully transported a live flatfish out of water for a 20-hour transatlantic flight to Los Angeles. The fish went into an induced hibernation inside a plastic bag ...

... an Australian company was planning to use 500 tons of industrial urea in a bid to promote plankton growth in the Pacific. The company preferred the term "nutrient injection" to "dumping" ...

2005's debut album from The Go! Team -- Thunder, Lighting, Strike -- was a revelation. It sounded like nothing else on the planet. Reviewers fumbled for descriptions: late-'70s-cop-show-theme-song funk meets late-'80s girl rap meets sample-heavy electronica meets low-fi DIY garage production. Imagine walking down an urban street, with different music jamming out of different windows, and for a brief moment it all meshes together, like a glorious, exuberant bit of serendipity.

I suppose, given the happy-accident quality of the first album, the follow-up was destined to disappoint. Making this kind of sound again, self-consciously, just doesn't quite work as well. Sure enough, Proof of Youth doesn't provide quite the same thrill. It's not bad, but it does lead one to suspect that the band will never recapture the magic.

Still, there are some good cuts, and if this catches your ear at all you really should go dig up the first album.

UPDATE: I have to put this up top, because it's so deliciously delightful. Turns out Rush Limbaugh fell for this scam, hook, line, and sinker. He bought it because he misunderstood a warning from notorious skeptic crank Roy Spencer -- he thought Spencer was calling climate change, not the paper, a hoax. Spencer subsequently apologized for, um, Limbaugh's stupidity and gullibility. Wow. I hardly know what to do with all this schadenfreude.

The world hardly needs any more proof that the remaining climate change "skeptics" (who among other things have ruined the perfectly respectable term "skeptic" for the rest of us) are ideologues who will believe anything that supports their position and disbelieve anything that refutes it. They keep offering us proof anyway.

Last week a paper was drifting around the tubes that allegedly showed that ocean bacteria, not humans, are responsible for most global warming. It was published in a heretofore never-heard-of online journal called Journal Of Geoclimatic Studies. It contained charts and graphs and other scientistical-type stuff, but what really gave the skeptics a stiffy was this passage toward the end:

Some good energy news:

US wind power installations are projected to jump 63 percent this year amid concern about global warming and rising fuel prices, an industry group said on Wednesday.

The US wind industry is on track to complete a total of 4,000 megawatts worth of installations in 2007, or about enough to power 1 million average homes, according to the American Wind Energy Association [AWEA].

Tip o' the hat to state renewable energy standards and the federal production tax credit.

You can get more details from the AWEA website, including the third-quarter market report. Here are some state highlights:

• Texas again added the largest amount of new wind power generation (600 MW).
• Colorado installed 264 MW and now ranks as the state with the sixth-largest amount of wind power generation.
• Washington, with 140 MW of new wind capacity, pulls ahead of Minnesota into fourth place.

So yes, climate progress does occur, when the government works at it.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

It's surprising how much pollution ships emit: over 2,000 tons of diesel soot a year in southern California, for example, about 10 percent of the total in the region.

Worse, a new study by researchers at the University of Delaware and Rochester Institute of Technology finds that the burning of cheap, dirty, sulfurous "residual oil" on ships kills an estimated 60,000 people around the world. "Premature mortality" is the phrase used in the study.

Annual average contribution of shipping to (particulate matter) PM_2.5 concentrations for Case 2b (in µg/m³). Copyright © 2007 American Chemical Society

(h/t: The Blue Marble)

In case you don't read comments: In response to Mike Grunwald's post on the Water Resources Development Act, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) of the Corps Reform Caucus explains why he made the difficult decision to vote for it.

Last night I watched the TNSFKAMST (Thursday Night Shows Formerly Known as Must-See TV). To be honest I'd forgotten it was Green Is Universal week; I was just indulging in a little sitcom sitdown. But there was no escaping the green message, and it was ... what's the word? ... artificial and painful and forced.

Three of the four shows -- My Name Is Earl, 30 Rock, and Scrubs -- took the over-the-topness over the top, having fun at their bosses' expense and doing the movement no favors. Earl was forced to wedge a green message into a school program about prison. David Schwimmer showed up on 30 Rock as an obnoxious, rigid, predictably narrow-minded green superhero who was a hit with the Today show crowd (and yes, that made me wince); Al Gore swooped in to add substance to his message, but promptly disappeared to save the whales. On Scrubs, Janitor turned his life into an eco-crusade, complete with Scout-style badges, only to learn that it's daunting and overwhelming and people don't really listen. Only The Office took a different route, with a bizarre -- but refreshing, given its context -- tale about finding oneself in the woods.

Throughout the evening, NBC aired mock PSAs featuring stars of the shows giving useless advice about going green. Seizure-inducing "tips" flashed at the bottom of the screen during the shows as well, and earnest ads from corporate giants touted various levels of eco-cred.

What were we to make of it all? At the end of night, I just felt depressed. All this attention on green issues is amazing, it really is -- when you see a Wal-Mart ad in prime time with a woman talking up a CFL bulb, you know things have changed. But is the messaging nothing more than the same old "greens are self-righteous prigs" shtick? Is the backlash against the popularity of green just a reversion to the pre-popularity mindset? I thought the conversation was changing. Now I'm not so sure.

I arrived in Beijing in late October, in time for the last days of the Communist Party's 17th National Congress. That's the top political conference that takes place once every five years, and the city was swarming with national and international visitors and press.

That day there were blue skies in Beijing. No kidding. The streets were swept clean, the sidewalk vendors gone, the DVD hawkers on holiday. There were many more police on the street, fewer cars. The sunset looked oily, a slick translucent glow to the clouds -- but the last time I visited Beijing in April, I hadn't even seen the sun through the smog.

Beijing during the Congress. Photo: Christina Larson

I spoke with a representative from the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau the following Monday who neither confirmed nor denied -- typical here -- what everyone else told me: In time for the big event, the city had ordered official cars off the road and shuttered surrounding factories. And voila, brighter skies. (As a test, I even went for a run.)

Two days later, the conference was over. The skies were grey, the sun obscured. There were once again cigarette butts and orange peels on the sidewalk; the clack-clack of sidewalk cobblers, and the men waving "Bourne Identity 3" DVDs. I coughed as I walked down the street; the air left a strange aftertaste.

This is a guest post from Britt Lundgren, an Agricultural Policy Fellow at Environmental Defense.

-----

Tom Philpott's recent column on the ongoing debate over Farm Bill reform raises some interesting points, including the idea that commodity subsidies may not be the root cause of overproduction. But he misses the real point behind the debate, which is whether or not the current suite of farm subsidies are actually an effective and productive way to support agriculture in the U.S.

Supporters of farm bill reform recognize that it is possible and necessary to replace our antiquated system of farm subsidies with a cost-effective farm safety net that works for all farmers, and that this change can free up funds that can be spent on other priorities within the Farm Bill, such as conservation and nutrition.

Much of the debate over Farm Bill reform centers on spending priorities. According to the Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidy Database, 10 percent of the beneficiaries of commodity subsidies received 66 percent of all the money spent on subsidies between 2003 and 2005. Because 6 out of 10 farmers don't get any subsidies at all (they grow vegetables, fruits, nuts or other crops that aren't eligible for subsidies), this means that during this period, just a tiny fraction of the farmers in the US collected over $22 billion in payments. Despite all of the money we pour into farm subsidies, most small and medium-sized farmers are still struggling to make ends meet.

And at the same time that the federal government is writing seven-figure checks to some farmers, the USDA is turning away two out of every three farmers who apply for USDA conservation programs, and the average food stamp recipient is expected to make do with just $1 a meal in support. How is this an equitable -- or sensible -- allocation of taxpayer dollars?

If scientists could take the repeated dashing of hopes for a better future and harness it to make electrons, we'd have electricity too cheap to meter. If the crushing of expectations were a renewable resource, this Congress is truly on the cutting edge of the clean energy revolution.

Apparently, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi met on Thursday morning and decided to move an energy bill that does not include an RPS [see this post]. Or a tax title. No tax title means no extension of the investment tax credit for solar, and no extension of the production tax credit for wind. Let's see ... nothing for solar, plus nothing for wind, ... add no RPS, carry the zero ... yep, that adds up to nothing for renewable energy. Got that? Congressional leadership is moving an energy bill with nothing in it for renewable energy.

We've got maybe 24 hours to turn this around. I suggest a phone blitz. Melt the %$@*! switchboard. Call your representative. Suggested script:

... will take place on Dec. 5 (sub. rqd.). Lieberman says he's open to some changes, as long as they don't splinter the coalition:

Two years ago, one of us (Jason) was at an energy industry conference planning committee and he made the point that whether or not everyone around the table agreed on global warming, the issue was just about to break out and dominate the public conversation on energy. Because of global warming, he went on to say, getting a new coal-fired power station built was just a "prudency review waiting to happen." For those of you that remember, it was, in many ways, the prudency review process that killed the nuclear industry back in the 1980s.

In the past several weeks, several announcements suggest that this situation has indeed come to pass. Here's what's going on: the Kansas Department of Health and Environment turned down a permit for 1400-MW of coal-fired power based on emissions of global warming gases. This is arguably the first time a coal plant has been denied for this reason. Let's repeat the state: Kansas. It's not California, Florida, New York,or Oregon. Kansas has historically been a coal-friendly state.

Another story revealed that even in Montana, a coal-producing state (or at least one with significant coal reserves), coal plant permits are being fought by bipartisan coalitions, and that electric utilities concede that these groups are effective. In other reports that cross our desks regularly, we note that more than 10,000 MW of coal plants recently have been canceled or postponed around the country.

No doubt many are of you are cheering! But there are trade-offs in all things -- especially in energy, environmental, and economic issues. As enthusiasm for coal wanes, it grows for nuclear, even among some that have fought tooth and nail against nuclear in the past. However, there's a problem. The fastest any nuclear plant can come online, given regulatory and financing hurdles, is around 2015. Meanwhile, electricity demand continues to grow. As much as the rewewables camp wants to believe it, solar and wind are not going to supply all or even most of the necessary power anytime soon. (We strongly believe in renewable energy, but also believe that we need energy storage to make it work on a scale that will be able to replace a significant amount of fossil fuels.) So what's going to replace coal as the dominant fuel for electricity production?

Michael Grunwald, senior correspondent for Time Magazine and noted critic of the Army Corps of Engineers, says yesterday's historic override of President Bush's water-bill veto isn't worth celebrating -- despite what many environmental activists think.

Hooray! The Everglades and coastal Louisana have been rescued! Activists and politicians alike are giddy over the news that Congress overwhelmingly overrode President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act yesterday. The override authorizes $5 billion worth of new Army Corps of Engineers projects for the dying Everglades and the devastated Louisiana coast, plus another $18 billion worth of new projects for the rest of the country. It was the first veto override of the Bush era, an unprecedented bipartisan rebuke to an anti-environmental White House. The Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, and the National Parks Conservation Association are celebrating. So are the elected officials of Florida and Louisiana, even Bush-friendly Republicans like Senators Mel Martinez and David Vitter.

You'd think I'd be fired up, too. I wrote a book about the plight of the Everglades. I wrote an angry Time Magazine cover story about the plight of coastal Louisiana. I hold no brief for the global warming denier in the White House.

But this time, Bush was right.

OK. I'm still trying to report this out. What I have for now comes from environmental advocates, off-the-record conversations, and, for what it's worth, my own speculation. The situation is very fluid, and can change at any time (as in, by the time you read this). Near as I can tell, though, this is how things look going into tonight:

I've learned from concerned advocates that Democratic congressional leadership is considering stripping the production tax credits for wind and solar, along with the federal renewable portfolio standard, from the conference bill. Losing the RPS and the PTC would mean jettisoning basically every measure that the White House has complained about. Apparently, Reid and Pelosi may have decided that a bill with a Renewable Fuel Standard (i.e., monstrous subsidies for ethanol) and a boost in CAFE standards is enough to secure Democratic bragging rights on energy.

If this happens, it will mean there's bupkis in the energy bill for renewable electricity, imperiling probably billions of dollars in solar and wind contracts that have been written with the expectation that the production tax credits will lower costs to investors and consumers.

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) is up to some serious shenanigans up on the hill.

First, he has introduced an amendment that would attach the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) to the farm bill. He claims he's trying to save the RFS, in case negotiations on the energy bill (where the RFS now lives) stall out. Senate majority leader Harry Reid opposes the move. Why? It's complicated, but the gist is that lots of folks -- Reid likely included -- see this as an attempt to sink the energy bill. The RFS is one of the key planks holding support for the energy bill together, bringing in some midwestern Republicans to compensate for the auto and oil Dems that have bailed. If the RFS falls out of the energy bill, the coalition falls apart.

Also, there are some environmental improvements in the works for the RFS (which is, as Ron keeps saying, odious beyond measure) -- putting it in the farm bill would help it escape the horrible fate of being rendered slightly less porktastic. Furious maneuvering is underway.

Secondly, if that's not bad enough, Domenici is trying to attach his beloved nuclear loan guarantees to the farm bill as well. (Green groups call him out for it.) He's doing so in a sneaky way, with an amendment that makes no specific mention of nuclear power -- it's called "loan guarantees for renewable fuel facilities." And who could oppose that? The deviousness comes under the title "Improvements to Underlying Loan Guarantee Authority." I'll spare you the legalese, but suffice to say it lumps nuclear loan guarantees in with the rest of the loan guarantee program, preventing appropriators from blocking nuke loan guarantees specifically (without also blocking ethanol loan guarantees, which we know no legislator would ever do). Which kind of makes this bit look more sinister:

... will not accept binding emissions caps in any international agreement. But according to Guido Sacconi, chairman of the European Parliament's climate change committee, China isn't the real problem: "The problem is rather that of other superpowers -- other areas of the world -- who may not wish to join in and follow the same course." Hm ...