Climate news roundup: an untimely passing, more bad energy bills, homeless polar bears--9/19

There's sadness across the environmental movement this week, as we mourn the untimely passing of Phil Clapp. You may have already seen David Sassoon's moving post on Phil's life and the many contributions he made to environmental protection, but if you haven't it's worth a read.

From the New York Times obituary:

Philip E. Clapp, an early and vigorous voice in the movement raising concern about global climate change, died Wednesday while vacationing in the Netherlands. He was 54 and lived in Washington.

The cause was complications of pneumonia, his sister, Lisa Ingalls, said.

Mr. Clapp’s influence was felt in the White House, on Capitol Hill and at international conferences and summit meetings on the environment.

For 14 years, he was president and chief executive of the National Environmental Trust, playing a significant role in lobbying for legislation, including amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 2006. He was a thorn in the side of both the Bush and Clinton administrations — once even calling Vice President Al Gore to task for what in his view was insufficient support for the top priorities of the environmental movement.

. . . . .

Rebecca W. Rimel, the president of the Pew Charitable Trusts, said in an interview Wednesday that for nearly 30 years Mr. Clapp had been “a relentless voice in calling on our leaders to address climate change.”

“He was involved in all of the international discussions and treaties,” Ms. Rimel continued, “as well as in producing critically important research and providing assistance to policymakers both domestically and internationally.”

On the heels of a flawed energy bill that passed the House earlier this week, the Senate has instead decided to once again kick the can down the road, at least until after the election:

The Senate's "Gang of 20" on energy has decided the political climate is just too hot right now for a real deal on energy policy.

So they've decided to simply lay out a list of energy "principles" Friday morning _ agreed to by ten Republicans and ten Democrats. But the group is punting on pushing any real legislation before the election.

"They are not going to introduce a bill," said one GOP aide involved in the group.

According to both Democratic and Republican aides directly involved in key meetings Thursday night, the bipartisan coalition's most significant agreement will be to push for drilling on the outer continental shelf, up to 25 miles off-shore, with revenue sharing for each coastal state that asks to "opt in" and allow drilling off their coast. That's a much more aggressive drilling policy than the one passed by the House, which would allow drilling 50 miles off shore, with no oil revenue sharing for states.

Then again, reading this description of the bill and its short-sighted "drill, baby, drill!"quality, it would be better if this bill were shelved indefinitely. As you might've read here earlier this week, there's already significant opposition to the bill from the environmental community. In fact, according to The Hill, it looks like there's nothing but gridlock ahead for energy legislation:

Senators on Wednesday suggested there may be too many competing proposals and too little political will for a last-minute breakthrough on energy legislation before the Senate adjourns for the year.

The grim prognosis came as senators reacted to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) strategy of holding votes on four separate energy bills in the final week before lawmakers recess on Sept. 26.

House members voted 236-189 to expand offshore drilling as part of a broader energy bill — but that bill has few backers in the upper chamber.

Few senators expressed optimism that the two parties could resolve deep disagreements in such a compressed, politically charged atmosphere, especially with 60-vote thresholds likely necessary. Reid himself suggested a lame-duck session after the Nov. 4 elections might be necessary if the issue cannot be resolved.

One bit of good news in this articles is that the Senate may decide to pass alternative energy tax incentives in a separate tax package. That will certainly please voters on the West Coast, who are solidly behind the development of renewable energy sources to reduce our dependence on oil:

The "drill, baby, drill" chant may fire up supporters of Big Oil, but it does not reflect the feelings of most Western voters, according to a new poll that will be released today.

If anything, the poll indicates voters in California, Oregon and Washington would like to yell out to those who will listen, "alternatives, sweetie, alternatives!"

The survey of 1,100 voters conducted by David Binder Research shows that although 50 percent of those polled in the three states would agree to more offshore oil drilling, their support is contingent on plans to protect the environment and develop renewable energy sources to minimize the need for oil.

"My immediate reaction was surprise at the extent to which Western voters were aligned on this issue," said Shanan Alper, an analyst for the research firm, based in San Francisco. "They know we can't keep relying on oil, and they know that drilling is not the answer. The overwhelming majority want us to move toward renewable energy."

While Congress plays politics with vital climate-related legislation, the states continue to look for ways to tackle global warming on their own. A task force in New Hampshire is studying ways to harmonize economic development with greenhouse gas reductions:

A task force charged by Gov. John H. Lynch with crafting a climate change action plan says its goal is to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are good for the state's economy.

That conclusion already is drawing fire from critics.

. . . . .

"What we see as our goal is how we can improve the economic development in the state while, at the same time, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That's what our challenge is. There are many examples out there that we can do, if we do it in the right way," said Cameron P. Wake, a climatologist and research professor at the University of New Hampshire's Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space.

The task force, which includes lawmakers, scientists, business leaders and economists, is analyzing the economic impact that proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have in various sectors of the state, such as transportation, land use, government, commerce and industry and agriculture.

Andrew already touched on this on the blog roundup, but it's too good to pass up. Greenpeace has found a clever and creative way to highlight the plight of polar bears that are becoming homeless due to climate change:

With Arctic sea ice at near record lows, Greenpeace today unveiled a collaborative art project in Washington, D.C. with well-known street artist Mark Jenkins to highlight the shared plight of polar bears and humanity in the face of global warming . And they are a preview of what we can expect as more climate refugees start appearing, as record temperatures, hurricanes, floods and rising sea levels continue to displace people and wildlife.

Street Bear 25The installation dramatizes how global warming is making polar bears homeless by causing the sea ice they rely on to melt, threatening many polar bear populations with extinction. The fourth piece in the series, featuring a homeless bear foraging in a trash can, was deployed Tuesday. It coincided with an announcement by the National Snow and Ice Data Center that Arctic sea ice has reached its second lowest annual extent in recorded history. The Arctic sea ice has fallen to a low of 1.74 million square miles in September, roughly 860,000 square miles below the long-term average.

Be sure to check out the video attached to the story. Got any other must-read stories? Share them in the comments!