There was a major development over the weekend in the case of a US research vessel, RV Marcus Langseth, seeking to conduct seismic testing in Canada's first marine protected area.

Environmentalists are fuming after learning the federal government has given permission to a U.S. research ship to begin controversial seismic testing in Canadian waters, despite an ongoing court challenge.

"The issue at stake here is the fact that by issuing this clearance permit for the vessel, they are valuing American interests above that of the Canadian environment and Canadian species at risk," said spokesman Kori Brus. "They've given no reason; they've simply done it."

A foreign affairs spokesman on Sunday would not confirm the ship has been given clearance to begin its test program. He refused to comment, saying the issue was before the courts.

While the Canadian government is refusing to comment on a decision that threatens blue whales and the integrity of the nation's first marine protected area, environmentalists ARE fuming - and rightfully so. The federal government's own documents demonstrate a full awareness of the impacts this testing will have on endangered whales, and they have allowed this research to go forward regardless of the best science available.

We're in court tomorrow working to have the permit issued to the US vessel stayed. More to come then.

US President Obama met with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper late last week in Ottawa. Following their brief meeting the two North American leaders outlined three main priorities for their bilateral relationship — working together to restore economic growth, a commitment to stabilize Afghanistan, and yes, a new initiative on environmental protection.

Indeed, in the lead up to yesterday's face-to-face Harper's statements about the environment were almost urgent. The Globe and Mail reported that,

"Mr. Harper said Mr. Obama's presidency is ushering in a new era of North American co-operation against climate change after George W. Bush's inaction held back Canada's ability to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions."

Perhaps like yourself, the statement above did not quite line up with my memories of Harper's foot dragging and general denial of climate change. But I am open minded, and to that end I took a quick survey of past Conscious Earth posts related to Harper and the environment. Maybe I remembered his track record wrong....

• May 30th, '06: The Flogging of Corn Cob Bob
• Jun 14th, '06: Feds Refuse to End Oil & Gas Subsidies
• Aug 30th, '06: Harper's Head in the Smog
• Oct 6th, '07: Conservatives Rhetoric Announces An End of Rhetoric
  
• Nov 6th, '07: Harper Snubs EU, Cancels Summit
  
• Nov 7th, '07: Tories Recognize Global Warming...When it Suits Them
  
• Dec 15th, '06: Harper Plans Green Sham III
  
• Jan 5th, '07: Harper Names New Environmental Salesman
  
• Jan 9th, '07: Voters Won't Buy McHarper's Green Plan
  
• Jan 17th, '07: Tories Solve Global Warming....Conservative Style
  
• Jan 22nd, '07: Harper Sucks the Voters Green Thumb
  
• Jan 25th, '07: Canada Takes Heat from UK on Climate
  
• Jan 31st, '07: Harper Shoots His Own Foot in "Battle of Kyoto"
  
• Feb '09, 07: The Greenest Thing About Baird is His Tie
  
• Feb 15th, '07: Tories Embarrassed (Again) As Opposition Passes Pro Kyoto Bill
  
• Sep 7th, '07: Leaders Agree to Aspire to Stop Global Warming
  
• Sep 20th, '07: Canada Faces Lawsuit Over Kyoto Failure
  

Nope, guess not.

Apologies for the lack of of '08 postings. I felt the need to spend some time out of country following the Conservative's overwhelming "progress". Still, there was some promise to the initial dialogue between Obama and Harper including plans for greater collaboration on carbon sequestration and employing smart grid technology to the electricity infrastructure. However, the ultimate success of these initial talks will depend on how rapidly and aggressively the new president implements a cap and trade system on carbon, and how those regulations would apply to imported energy from Canada's tar patch.

Time will tell. In the mean time, here's a photo compilation from the Conscious Earth posts listed above.

Has a new era truly begun? The clarity of direction and concrete details being issued by President-Elect Obama would certainly indicate it.

In a video address, Obama committed to putting the US back at the climate change negotiating table and to begin playing the role as leader that they always should have. He's promising a federal cap and trade system with targets to bring US emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020 and to reduce them a further 80% after that.

"Few challenges facing America, and the world, are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security."

In the lead up to the announcement, 350.org created a global petition to urge Obama to join other countries and bring atmospheric CO2 down to 350 ppm - the level generally agreed to be sustainable and safe by world experts. Powered by Biro Creative - a talented shop here in Vancouver who also helped in our recent landslide win for new mayor Gregor Robertson - the petition drive uses an interactive "Get on the Globe" world map that asks supporters to sign on, send the new President a letter, and upload their own supporter videos and pictures to promote action on climate change. The effort led to nearly 50,000 sign ups.

Add your name to the Globe, and see Obama's announcement below.

The Boston Globe has an excellent photo compilation honouring the next President of the United States.

Congratulations USA.

The United States is on the verge of history today and at the polls they are making it already. News reports from around the country are predicting the highest voter turnout in more than a century as 80% or more of all registered voters are lining up at the polls.

People are not lazy. They’re not apathetic. And if there is a lesson to take away from today it has to do with the quality of the individual who chooses to run for office. People care about politics everywhere, and they’re waiting for the smallest sign of leadership, direction, and a vision of tomorrow that is better than what we have today.

It’s the failure of our parties and representatives to offer that hope that keeps people from the polls, not a flaw in the voters themselves.

Enjoy today’s moment in history, and work to bring a part of it to your country and your community.

Everyone remember Ted Stevens?



FreeVideoCoding.com


The Democrats may be able to chalk up another seat, as the "Internets" challenged Republican Senator from Alaska has been found guilty of seven counts of corruption and is now facing up to 35 years in prison.

Ted Stevens may be forced to find another use for his own "tubes", in prison.


video source: crooks and liars
hat tip: Rob Cottingham

While the Federal Liberals took a step further into the leadership void today, political junkies can fall back on some good news south of the border.  The big news out of the US this weekend was the unequivocable endorsement of the Obama campaign by Gen. Colin Powell.  

I’m home now in Vancouver, with the daunting task of summing up and integrating a journey that covered four continents and more than eight months of my life. It can leave a person wondering how to bring that much home, or what home even means.

That said, there are a few common themes that became clear over the course of the journey. A major one concerns the views and assumptions that tend to guide the actions of our culture with the rest of the world, the damage of which becomes obvious when viewing there effects on some of the most impoverished nations on Earth.

In the case of Rwanda, we have been told that there horrific genocide was the culmination of tribal conflicts that stretched back centuries. After a mere days in that country, the truth became quickly and overwhelmingly obvious – that the division between Hutus and Tutsis was a colonial weapon established by the Belgians, and exploited by the French, in order to gain greater control over the population and later to profit by selling the weapons of genocide.

In rapidly developing India, they are celebrating their initiation into the world's nuclear fraternity, while domestically, the moral stance of the Dalai Lama has been criticized and questioned on the grounds that it may threaten Sino-Indian relations. One of the world's greatest ironies may explain India's true motivation. In 1999 , Major William Corson, intelligence aide to US President Dwight David Eisenhower, alledged that India agreed to grant the the Dalai Lama asylum in exchange for US help in developing nuclear weapons.

The case is similar in the issue of global warming, where western governments, in particular the US, points the finger of blame at developing countries while it is responsible for maintaining the worst mileage standards, consumes the most beef (one of the largest greenhouse gas contributors), and uses the most crude oil while they continue to propogate a war over oil to maintain the status quo.

That word, responsibility, is the key. Western morality is anchored on a bastardization of Adam Smith that assumes ultimate good will magically prevail for all by pursuing our own individual interests. However, unless balanced by an equal sense of our personal responsibility, what we perceive as our rights quickly turns into indulgence, and there begins most of the world’s problems.

An embrace of responsibility, alongside of our personal rights, makes it obvious that while we have a right to trade and deal diplomatically with African nations like Rwanda, we equally have a responsibility for the outcome of that trade when we market in weapons of destruction to an oppressive regime. It makes it obvious that the moral rights of an entire people are not appropriate negotiating items in diplomacy and trade. It also becomes obvious that the country responsible for the most environmental damage needs to take the lead in forming environmental solutions.

If we strike another person, that blow is not the fault of the person receiving it. A gun owner is responsible for their weapon falling into the hands of young children. Unintentional murder is deemed involuntary manslaughter and is not the responsibility of the murdered. Likewise, the direct harm caused by our consumer, policy, and business decisions is not the fault of our trade partners, but the responsibility of those perpetrating the actions - exploitative businesses, the government’s that those businesses lobby for profitable trade policies, and we, the citizens, who value what we call prosperity over the human rights of other nations affected. The solutions, then, rest with us.

Responsibility can begin at home. The United States, Canada and my own city of Vancouver have a lot of work to do this fall. It’s time to get to it.

This week's cover story in Newsweek is leveled squarely at global warming deniers, outlining the concerted and well funded plan by certain industries to mislead the public and derail efforts to fight global warming.

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless.

Critical thinking 101 - when you see remarks like these, all coming from the same source, know that the people making these claims do not have a real position based on evidence. They are arguing for a particular result, in this case to stop any action that reduces greenhouse gases. If they had a real position to defend, they use wouldn't change their argument on a monthly basis.

The good news is that the denial machine is slowly failing. Last year, polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was "a lot" of scientific disagreement on climate change. That figure has now fallen to 39%. However the real discrepancy lies between the opinions of Americans and the understanding of those living in other nations.

In Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia the public is fully aware of the scientific consensus on global warming. Despite the difference in understanding the polls reveal, the continued failure of US to join the world ranks says more about the workings of the country itself than it does about its people.

The fact is that the American people need to confront a very uncomfortable truth about their nation, one that goes far beyond the reality of global warming and touches the core of their culture and society. That is, that while laying claim to the title of the world's leader of democracy and freedom, the United States of America represents the modern world's most sophisticated machine for brainwashing their own populace and ensuring their continued ignorance - to the impacts of their lifestyles, to the loss of their own freedoms, and to the failings of their own democratic state.

Ultimately, the American people need to confront the real hoax being perpetrated by their elected officials, educational institutions, and media conglomerates on a daily basis - that they live in the world's freest country, despite all evidence to the contrary.


To read the scientific information behind the Newsweek article visit Grist.

To learn what you can do about deniers click here.

In the face of global warming and eight dry years, the United States is confronting its worst drought since the Dust Bowl years of the Great Depression. Between 1930 and 1940, 2.5 million people were forced to leave the southwest plains and 50 million acres of formerly productive land was destroyed thanks to a combination of drought and poor farming practices.

Nobody is saying the impacts of this year's drought are on that scale. However, Alabama Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions have are already requesting a disaster declaration for 19 Alabama counties as corn farmers and cattle ranchers face potential ruin. The more drastic consequences may occur much further north, in Canada.

The US federal government, particularly President Bush, still has not agreed to impose mandatory cuts on greenhouse gas emissions. Until they do, they are effectively saying that they are prepared to live with the consequences of global warming rather than try to prevent them. For the states already affected by drought this will mean longer and more severe water shortages and increasing strain on already endangered farmland. If that occurs, the US government will be left with three choices to address the looming catastrophe:

1. do nothing
2. relocate millions of people to more economically productive areas
3. gain controlling interests of Canada's fresh water supply.

One guess as to which option the US will choose. Abandoning large tracts of the country isn't just economically undesirable, it would also mean relinquishing two of America's most cherished bedtime stories - 1) that it's man's right to control and exploit nature for his own benefit, and 2) manifest destiny, the myth that "the American government was "destined" to establish uninterrupted political authority across the entire North American continent."

The US thirst for Canadian water is not a myth. It's a desire and policy goal that's been prepared for by international trade agreement's (NAFTA) and clearly stated by numerous US politicians, most recently Kansas congressional hopeful John Doll.

If the drought continues, look for renewed calls for large scale water diversions from Canada - an alarming possibility given rising world temperatures, shrinking glaciers, and a booming Canadian oil sands industry that has already swallowed up enough water rights to quench the thirst of a large city.

Renovations of Al Gore's home are almost complete, and the result will be a model of green design, technology and engineering that will put a final end to the latest round of ill-conceived and baseless smear campaign being waged by right wing pundits.

"This plan has been in the works for a long time," the former vice president said in an interview with The Associated Press. "The only thing that has changed is that we're more public about it because of the misleading attack by a global-warming denier group."

Gore's redesigned home is aiming to meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards and will include rooftop solar panels, a geothermal heating system, upgraded windows and ductwork, energy-efficient lighting and a rainwater collection system for irrigation and water management.

However, conservative groups and climate change deniers have been working hard over through this same time period to paint Al Gore as an environmental hypocrite who only talks green as a part of an elaborate ploy to enter the US presidential race. Like most spin jobs this one is slim on facts and long on hot air.

The initial assault on Gore's environmental reputation was a laundry list of outright lies that were thoroughly debunked here at TCE. Next came a gem of an effort from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR), a right wing think-tank of marginal credibility that, among other things, "facilitates" a three ring circus of global warming deniers. In February, the TCPR dug Al Gore's utility bill out of the metaphorical trash bin and promptly launched a southern style swift boating of the former Vice President - an equally inaccurate attack that conveniently ignored the fact(s) that:

1. Gore pays a premium for green power options in his home,
2. that the environmentally friendly renos listed above had been in the works well before the time of their attack,
   
3. that the only reason solar panels were not installed already is because Gore has been knee deep in a municipal battle over bylaw restrictions, and most importantly
4. that the Gore "residence" is not only a home but also an office for both Al Gore, his wife and runs a commercial kitchen for events.

But it only takes five words to say "Al Gore is a hypocrite", whereas you need a few sentences and a 10 second Google search to reveal the motivation of the TCPR and the green leading designs of Mr. Gore. If the country can't expect that kind commitment to accuracy from their pseudo elected leader, then far be it for me to ask it of the conservative press.

The US says it will reject the climate change goals set out by German Chancellor and G8 Chair Angela Merkel as this week's summit begins today in Heiligendamm, Germany.

Merkel proposes cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050, setting up a cap and trade system for carbon, and limiting global warming to 2% celsius - goals that are broadly seen as the minimum needed to avert the more severe impacts of global warming. The US rejects all of these goals and, under the guise of defending the rights of individual countries, is pushing for a US led agreement between the world's top emitters that would allow continual increases in greenhouse gases.

Speaking ahead of his meeting, Mr Bush said that instead of backing the proposed emissions caps he favoured his own plan that the worst CO2 emitting nations, including the US, China and India, meet before the year is out to put together a new long-term strategy to tackle the problem.

The US continues to promote reductions in carbon "intensity" and voluntary reduction targets. It is well established that voluntary targets do not work, and as explained here, reducing carbon intensity will do nothing to decrease overall greenhouse gas emissions and consequently will lead to increased global warming.

Meanwhile, outgoing British PM Tony Blair insists that he can convince George Bush to agree to substantial cuts within an UN framework.

Good luck Tony, we're all counting on you.

A leaked document shows that the US remains rigidly opposed to any action on global warming that involves firm targets and timelines. The G8 nations will be meeting next month to discuss new commitments in fighting global warming, but a memo obtained by Greenpeace outlines the firm opposition from the US.

"The US still has serious, fundamental concerns about this draft statement," a red-inked note reads.

"The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses 'multiple red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to," it continues.

"We have tried to 'tread lightly' but there is only so far we can go given our fundamental opposition to the German position."

Meanwhile, Britain and other EU nations are seeking a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050, and last week Japan announced a proposal that would see a 50% reduction by the same date.

But as long as the world is hung up on US buy-in, the entire process needs a wake up call and reality check - in that order.

The US will never agree to real progress on this issue so long as the current administration is holding the presidential reins. The first step other nations need to take is to realize this and start creating solutions that have a chance of working. Step one, send the US away from the negotiating table. Step two, go directly to China and India.

China will surpass US emissions this year. Rapidly growing India is a ways behind but already clocks in at number four (Russia, China and the US are ahead of them for now). At more than a billion people each, and unprecedented annual economic growth, it is essential that these rapidly emerging superpowers are brought into international efforts immediately, regardless of US participation. If the US is throwing a wrench into those efforts, then they need to be sent home. The fallacy of the debate is buying into the notion that the US needs to be there in the first place.

The EU will continue to bring forward aggressive targets and action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Japan will also. Add the combined clout of the Asian superpowers and formal US participation becomes a side issue. These economies can establish and drive an international carbon market. Once that emerges many US companies will inevitably opt in as a viable carbon market creates new business opportunities. Also, the massive trade deficit of the US means that they'll be purchasing most of their products from other nations with way higher efficiency standards. So the US carbon footprint stands to benefit by proxy, if not directly.

This still leaves the thorny issue of direct US emissions - namely in the form of industrial, energy, and automotive emissions. For this, the best solution is their state and municipal governments. Increasingly, US cities and individual states are forging their own global warming strategies. When the international community begins dealing directly with these institutions and stops banging their head against the Bush administration wall, they will greatly help efforts already going on in the US - and inevitably, Washington will need to follow.

The United States generates almost 5 million tonnes of e-waste each year. Now the world's largest office products company has launched a US-wide recycling program that should begin to reduce that number.

Staples new nationwide computer recycling program will accept all brands of computers, regardless of where they were purchased. Small items such as keyboards and mice will be accepted at no charge, while larger items will be charged $10 to cover handling, transport, product disassembly and recycling. The move adds to an existing program that already accepts smaller devices like cell phones, pagers and digital cameras free of charge, and Staples is insisting that the recycling will be done both domestically and responsibly.

Staples said its program will ship the devices for domestic recycling by Vestal, N.Y.-based Amandi Services, which Staples calls "one of the country's most experienced and innovative electronics recyclers." Amandi complies with federal standards for electronics recycling and will take steps to ensure personal data stored on old computers aren't compromised, Staples says.

"We're not shipping products overseas, and we have a strict chain of custody to make sure we know where these materials are going," Buckley said.

Some critics are calling for them to drop the $10 charge and perform the service for free, but let's be realistic. Staples is a business not a charity, and the fact that they are offering this program free for most items is good news. Also, seeing as most computers are purchased as replacements for outdated models, it's fair to say that if you can afford to drop $1,000 on a new computer, you can also afford another $10 to ensure that the toxic waste from your old model does not end up in an Asian garbage dump.

Details of the program as follows:

- Customers drop off their old equipment at the customer service desk at any Staples store, 7 days a week during regular store hours; (TV’s and large, floor-model copiers are not accepted).

- Staples will recycle any manufacturers’ products, regardless of whether or not it was purchased from Staples, and there’s no limit on the quantity of equipment that can be recycled.

- A recycling fee of $10 per piece of large equipment is charged to cover handling, transport, product disassembly and recycling. Smaller computer peripherals, such as keyboards and mice, will be recycled for free.

- Staples Easy Techsm service is on site in all stores to transfer data from an old computer to a new one for a fee.

Canada is set to allow greater amounts of pesticide residue on fruit and vegetables because our stricter regulations pose a potential "trade irritant" to US producers. The change in policy will affect hundreds of products.

The move is part of an effort to harmonize Canadian pesticide rules with those of the United States, which allows higher residue levels for 40 per cent of the pesticides it regulates....

Canadian regulators and their U.S. counterparts have been working to harmonize their pesticide regulations since 1996, as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

This at a time when municipalities throughout Canada are fighting for - and winning - the right to restrict the use of toxic pesticides in their communities, the most recent of which was the high profile court battle in Toronto. In 2005, Toronto finally received the legal go ahead to reduce the non-essential use of pesticides when the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the pesticide industry's final court challenge. Now the government of Canada is set to loosen the reigns on pesticide control on the food we eat to accommodate American trade interests. Welcome to the world of free trade and blurred borders.

Brilliant....just bloody brilliant.

We all know how the saying in the title finishes. Our next generation may not.

For the past year, scientists have been following one of the most baffling and alarming situations yet seen in nature - the abrupt collapse of bee colonies throughout the world.

Termed Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), it occurs when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers.

Concerns were first raised last fall in the US, and to date the American West Coast is thought to have lost 60% of its commercial bee population and a further 70% on the East Coast. CCD has since spread to Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and most recently the UK, where one of London's largest bee-keepers has recently announced that 23 of 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned.

The cause has not been identified with certainty. Deceased bees are being found with massive amounts of pathogens and widespread disease, leading some to blame pollution and environmental toxins. Others are finding evidence that the navigation systems of bees are being disrupted by radiation from the growing number of mobile phones going into use.

Either way, the situation is alarming and represents a huge risk to the environment and our food supply. Most of the pollination for US food crops is accomplished through honey bees, at an annual value of $14 billion.

The head of the US Environmental Protection Agency is claiming a victory in the fight against global warming, and crediting the visionary climate change policies of George Bush for the results.

On Monday, EPA Administrator Dave Johnson announced that US greenhouse gas emissions grew by only 1% in 2005.

"The Bush administration's unparalleled financial, international and domestic commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is delivering real results," Johnson proclaimed in a statement.

Back in the real world, calling a growth in greenhouse gases a climate change victory is a bit like shooting a hockey puck into your own goal. More to the point, Mr. Johnson's counterparts in other US government departments had a more sober perspective on the situation. The people responsible for tracking US energy usage credit 2005's slower rise in greenhouse emissions to market factors and oil supply disruptions along the storm battered Gulf Coast - storms that may well grow more frequent, as global temperatures rise.

The slow growth in emissions from 2004 to 2005 can be attributed mainly to higher energy prices that suppressed demand, low or negative growth in several energy-intensive industries, and weather-related disruptions in the energy infrastructure along the Gulf Coast. As a result, while the economy grew by 3.2 percent, energy consumption fell by 0.3 percent.

More perspective on the US emissions can be found in the graph below:

The US government has issued a notice that companies that make or distribute toys or other children's products that include lead will face increased scrutiny as a part of a move to avoid lead poisoning in children.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will now be making contact with up to 120 importing and manufacturing companies by the end of April to instruct them to provide health and safety studies if any lead might be found in the products they make for children.

The risks posed by lead poisoning have been known for decades and are so severe that in the 1980s the petroleum industry was forced to eliminate lead from gasoline - and it's certainly not every day that the oil industry changes its product line in the face of social and health concerns.

So the question is, why is there any lead in children's products in the first place?

Making children's toys from lead is about as intelligent as allowing mercury into the food chain or dumping sewage into drinking water sources. Rather than patting the government on the back for this move, its time to get aggressive with the companies that are placing known poisons in children's toys in the first place.

The International Auto Show has been making the rounds of North America, with my home town of Vancouver being the latest stop on the tour.

Front and centre in this year's show is an increasingly aggressive campaign of green posturing by the major car manufacturers as they line up their latest high tech, fuel efficient models for the market and press. Highest profile among them is the Chevrolet Volt, GM's new "plug-in hybrid" concept car.

Doesn't it look pretty!

And as various bloggers and journalists are chaperoned through the Detroit autoshow (so as to better tow the GM line), give them credit for making a pass at something resembling balanced reporting. They do raise concerns with the Volt - about the potential hazards in disposing of electric batteries, of relying on coal powered electricity to charge battery powered vehicles, and of the potential recycling issues with the Volt's interior materials - all while being dazzled by the glitz of surface design.

That was part of the plan, we learned -- "green vehicles" aren't always particularly sexy, so Chevy wanted to bring some of the emotional attachment of the Corvette and Camaro to a greener vehicle.

"Green companies" aren't always sexy either, and what the rest of us have learned is how easy it is to get a environmental writer to lose sight of the ball.

Though valid, the criticisms above utterly miss the point. Namely, that while GM is flogging their green credentials, they are firmly entrenched as one North America's fiercest opponents of global warming action, thanks to their persistent lawsuits against states trying to pass tougher vehicle emissions standards.

GM is the lead plaintiff among a coalition of auto manufacturers in the highly publicized lawsuit against California over their landmark automobile emissions law. They were also the lead witness in a similar suit launched by automakers in the state of Vermont this past Tuesday, while yet another GM backed lawsuit is underway in Rhode Island. All in, nine states are trying to move forward with meaningful action to reduce automobile emissions under tremendous opposition from GM and the auto industry as a whole.

While green writers are being hypnotized by a public relations slight of hand, GM continues a full out legal campaign against some of the most progressive actions on climate change we have.

The bright spot is that thanks to last week's precedent at the US Supreme Court that recognized co2 as a pollutant, GM's efforts stand and excellent chance of failing. But regardless, automakers can make no claim to green credentials so long as they continue to use the courts to derail laws and policies that will lead to a healthier planet - no matter how many green poster cars they roll out for the cameras.

GM can have their Volt, so long as they quit interfering with real climate change solutions.

A study released on Tuesday revealed that New York was responsible for a full 1% of the United States' greenhouse gases. Coming much later in the article is the key point - that at 8.7 million people the Big Apple accounts for almost 3% of the total US population, meaning that the footprint of your average New Yorker is about 1/3 that of your average American.

The lesson? If every American lived like a New Yorker the US wouldn't have to agree to the Kyoto Protocol - because they already would have reached its targets.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg had commissioned the study to evaluate the city's progress in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions 30% by 2030. Cheers to real leadership.