Pipelines & Pipe Dreams

Last night, we encountered a fascinating surprise. It's another twist in the rather twisted plot of Southern Nevada Water Authority's (SNWA) proposed pipeline to pump water from Snake Valley (and Western Utah) to Clark County. SNWA "Water Czar" Pat Mulroy has claimed Southern Nevada needs to prepare for a future without much Colorado River water, but the coalition of rural farmers and urban environmentalists fighting "The Water Grab" have pointed to water conservation programs (including many that SNWA itself once championed!) as less disruptive and less expensive alternatives to the proposed pipeline.

Over the years, SNWA has been able to line up needed state and federal approval to build the Snake Valley Pipeline. But yesterday, a critical element of that equation was taken away. Nevada State Engineer Jason King approved the Snake Valley Pipeline in 2011, but a district court invalidated a key part of that approval yesterday.

[...] Senior District Judge Robert Estes said this "is likely the largest interbasin transfer of water in U.S. history" and that parts of King's decision were "arbitrary and capricious" and ordered him to re-evaluate the amount of water available in the four basins and take another look at the potential environmental damage.

Estes said King approved an excess of 9,780 acre feet of water being drawn from Spring Valley, and the judge ordered King to recalculate the amount of available water to assure there is "an equal amount of discharge and recharge in a reasonable time." King must also reconsider how piping water from Spring Valley will impact the groundwater resources in Millard and Juab counties in Utah. [...]

Rob Mrowka, senior scientist for the Center for Biological Diversity called the decision a "huge blow to the water authority's plan to suck massive amounts of water out of the Nevada-Utah desert to feed urban sprawl in and around Las Vegas." He continued, calling this a "historic ruling and a great victory for wildlife in Nevada and Utah, rural communities and families, and for the citizens of Las Vegas." He said the water authority now has the opportunity to explore other alternatives to serve the growing needs of Southern Nevada.

While Mr. Mrowka is correct that SNWA now has the opportunity to explore alternatives, it remains to be seen how much more time and money SNWA will spend before considering those alternatives. For several years, Pat Mulroy has made the Snake Valley Pipeline her greatest cause. It was once meant to give life to Harvey Whittemore's latest and greatest exurban masterpiece, Coyote Springs. But now that Harvey Whittemore is claiming residence in a federal prison cell and Coyote Springs has become an electrified ghost town (with a lovely golf course), Mulroy no longer has a shiny new real estate boondoggle development to direct Snake Valley water to. Yet despite the legal and financial collapse of Whittemore's juiced up empire, Mulroy refuses to give up on the pipeline that was meant to fuel his last great pipe dream.

And the drama doesn't end there. Once upon a time, Pat Mulroy was considered Nevada's most powerful unelected leader. But in a shocking reversal of fortune, the Nevada Legislature considered a bill early this year to require more oversight of SNWA on the heels of public backlash over recent water rate increases and accusations of workers' rights abuses. While the bill itself was later shelved, SNWA is no longer perceived to be a political "sacred cow" that's never to be challenged.

What was once meant to be the final regal feather in the cap of Pat Mulroy's illustrious reign as Southern Nevada's Water Czar is instead beginning to resemble a rope (tied to an anvil) that's been leading Mulroy's SNWA into an embarrassing string of scandals and setbacks. Even if SNWA can score a victory in the Nevada Supreme Court (and that's far from certain, considering that court ruled against SNWA in 2010), it likely won't be the end of the legal battles over the Snake Valley Pipeline. And with continuing anger in the Las Vegas Valley over recent water rate hikes (meant to fund construction of the pipeline), SNWA no longer has a strong base of support at home for the pipeline.

We can only wonder when the halls of power atop SNWA headquarters will hear this question being asked aloud: Is it worth it? Is the Snake Valley Pipeline truly worth all this time and money? And is it worth all the political capital SNWA has lost in recent years? Oh, and is it worth the risk it presents to a wide swath of Rural Nevada that depends on Snake Valley water? And is it worth the risk of allowing for exurban sprawl that could later cause logistical woes for Clark County?

Here's another question for all of us to consider: Is it finally time for us to drop the crack pipe that's given us pipe dreams of a pipeline that can magically make the horrors of drought and climate change go away? As of now, this pipe dream is looking like a massive nightmare.

Unsustainable Status Quo

Last week, we couldn't help but notice some green shoots. And really, we needed to notice them. Amid all the troubling news on climate change, it can be easy to fall into a mental trap of nihilism and despair.

Fortunately, we have another green shoot to examine this week. Remember when President Obama agreed to take executive action on climate change back in June? We will soon begin seeing the results of that as the ENDA regulatory agenda for 2014 is rolled out.

Between now and September 2014 the EPA aims to finalize its rules for capping greenhouse gas emissions from existing natural gas and coal-fired plants, which together produce a whopping 40 percent of the United States' carbon emissions and one-third of its heat-trapping gases. Controlling smokestacks emissions is critical to addressing climate change, but carbon legislation is a non-starter, even in the Democratically controlled Senate. The EPA rules are bound to be challenged in court and they'll invariably fuel allegations that Obama—and his vulnerable Democratic allies on Capitol Hill—are waging a war on coal. But, presuming they survive, they could be historic.

While the caps for existing plants have yet to take shape, the White House recently called for limiting new coal-fired plants to 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour—60 percent less than the average coal-powered plant releases—and gas-power plants to 1,000 pounds.

We can only hope this is the beginning. After all, it must be. We face disastrous consequences if we don't get serious about lowering our greenhouse gas emissions. And really, we're already starting to see the consequences materialize now.

Unfortunately, this is when we must pivot back to the bad news. While the new EPA rules represent progress, we still need to do much more just to avert total annihilation.

Yet when we look to Capitol Hill, we see Republican "leaders" calling for hearings on aliens while dismissing proven science. And we see them wasting even more time hunting down the perfect "OBAMA SCANDAL!!!" And while they're holding hearings on UFOs and other conspiracy theories, they're failing to perform even the most basic tasks of governance. So we can't really set our hopes too high for this Congress to take serious action on climate change.

But again, this is unsustainable. The status quo is unsustainable. We need to invest in our future. We can't afford to keep longing for a past that will never return.

Oh, & About That Other Real Crisis...

Late last month, the world encountered some very troubling news. And of course, many on Capitol Hill simply ignored it. After all, they had a manufactured crisis to masturbate tend to.

Yet while the rest of the world has been incredibly disturbed by our manufactured crisis, people have also been worried about the very real crisis threatening us all. The verdict is in (yet again). And yes, we've been found guilty of responding too slowly to the growing threat of climate change.

The world's leading climate scientists, who have been meeting in all-night sessions this week in the Swedish capital, said there was no longer room for doubt that climate change was occurring, and the dominant cause has been human actions in pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

In their starkest warning yet, following nearly seven years of new research on the climate, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said it was "unequivocal" and that even if the world begins to moderate greenhouse gas emissions, warming is likely to cross the critical threshold of 2C by the end of this century. That would have serious consequences, including sea level rises, heatwaves and changes to rainfall meaning dry regions get less and already wet areas receive more.

In response to the report, the US secretary of state, John Kerry, said in a statement: "This is yet another wakeup call: those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire."

"Once again, the science grows clearer, the case grows more compelling, and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or commonsense should be willing to even contemplate," he said.

He said that livelihoods around the world would be impacted. "With those stakes, the response must be all hands on deck. It's not about one country making a demand of another. It's the science itself, demanding action from all of us. The United States is deeply committed to leading on climate change."

Fortunately for everyone, President Obama has committed to executive action to reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately for everyone, neither he nor anyone else can count on Congress to cooperate and pledge further action on the greatest global security threat of our time. Rather, the 21st Century Know Nothings in Congress are committed to denying reality and guaranteeing climate catastrophe.

What the 21st Century Know Nothings fail to realize is that a climate catastrophe is also an economic catastrophe. And it's not just the usual "dirty f*cking hippies" saying this. Even the former World Bank Chief Economist and (Republican) Former US Treasury Secretary are sounding the alarms.



The science is increasingly undeniable. So is the danger that lies ahead if we fail to act. But what about the opportunities of taking action?

Here in Nevada, we're already seeing the benefits of investment in renewable energy. And next door in California, they're reaping the rewards of vigorous investment in renewable energy. So why can't the entire nation turn this dangerous crisis into a momentous carpe diem moment?

Instead of being counterproductive and forcing manufactured crises upon the world, we should focus on solving the real crisis heading our way. We can't afford to allow stupidi-TEA get in the way of building a brighter economic future while also solving the climate crisis.

Manufactured Crisis v. Real Peril

The end is near! Finally, the end is near. The latest and greatest G-O-TEA manufactured crisis is finally coming to an end, and we can soon go on with life.

Yet as the current manufactured crisis approaches its inevitable conclusion, the nation and world must continue to wrestle with very real crises. In fact, there's one in particular making news again (for all the wrong reasons).

Food insecurity is set to rise 10-20% by 2050. Severe thunderstorms and tornadoes are about to become more common. And millions of people around the world are at risk of being trapped in epic poverty.



Sounds downright frightening, doesn't it? It should. Forget the stupid manufactured crises on Capitol Hill, climate change is the real crisis threatening global security.

We're risking our own future and our children's future by failing to solve this real crisis. But if we take the necessary steps to solve it, we can actually save lives. No really, we can save 3 million lives per year by 2100 by cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This is actually a rare case where cuts (in carbon emissions, that is) can save lives.

However, this is not just about cuts. It's also about growth. If Germany, Sweden, Brazil, Paraguay, and other nations can capitalize on the renewable energy revolution, why can't America? Well, we are to a certain extent... But we're still nowhere near our full potential.

So why aren't we taking advantage of this real opportunity? Why can't we actually solve this real crisis? Why must we keep wasting time on manufactured distractions? And why are we still debating real science?

Instead of obsessing over ridiculous manufactured crises, those "leaders" on Capitol Hill need to start focusing on solving the real ones.

The Coming Storm

These past couple of days have been wet ones for the Northwest Vegas Valley. The heavy downpours from Sunday and yesterday may have caused as much as $500,000 worth of damage while closing many roads in the area. And it isn't even over yet.



More rain is expected this week. And while there's concern about more damage, there's also a sense of relief. After all, Nevada and the entire Southwest region have faced epic drought and wildfires.

Already, we've been feeling the effects of climate change. The warning signs are everywhere. As carbon emissions continue to cause overall global warming, climate patterns change. This leads to more extreme floods in certain locations along with extreme drought in other locations.

This week, we're finally getting a little break from our drought with some much needed rain... But how long will it last? How long before we're bone dry yet again? And even when we get storms like the ones hitting this week, are we prepared to handle the storms of the future?

This week, we're getting some long awaited rain. But even as this is happening, we can't forget about the coming (climate change) storm. And we can't forget about what we must do to prepare for it.

Burned?

This shouldn't really be a surprise. We've had plenty of warning signs right in front of us. But now, it's become even more obvious.

In 2007, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report that got the whole world talking. It also moved some to action. Yet despite that, the US federal government failed to act.

This week, the IPCC released a new report. And this one is even more alarming than the last.

The report emphasizes that the basic facts about future climate change are more established than ever, justifying the rise in global concern. It also reiterates that the consequences of escalating emissions are likely to be profound.

“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”

Yes, it's this serious. And yes, climate change will be even more dangerous if we try to ignore it.

What (else) will it take to get us to act? What else will we have to endure? How many more people must suffer? Can we save ourselves before we get burned?

Warning Signs

This isn't new. For some time, we've been warned of the frightening effects of climate change. We've even been experiencing it first hand here in Nevada.

And now, we're beginning to see more major signs of the coming climate crisis in our backyard. Believe it or not, we're seeing those signs at Lake Tahoe. UC Davis today released this year's State of the Lake Report, and it notes some critical warning signs for Tahoe.

• Annual average surface temperature was 52.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the highest ever recorded for Lake Tahoe.
• Snow has decreased as a fraction of total precipitation, from an average of 51 percent in 1910 to 36 percent in 2012.
• A continued long-term trend of fewer days with below-freezing temperatures caused snowmelt to peak on May 4, earlier than historical conditions.
• Lake level experienced a net loss in 2012. It rose by only 1.3 feet during the snowmelt, compared with 3.9 feet in 2011. During summer and fall, lake level fell by 2.3 feet.

To be fair, the report isn't all bad news. Clarity actually slightly improved, though that may be mostly due to lower than average precipitation (dropping fewer pollutants into the lake). Also, overall algae levels are down.

Still, the higher temperatures, lower snowpack, and lower lake level are of concern. And again, it's hard to deny that the extended Western Drought brought to us by climate change isn't having an impact here.

And that's not all. We also found out this morning that last year was the hottest on record for the US and one of the Top 10 hottest years ever recorded globally.

In a press conference Tuesday, Kathryn Sullivan, acting NOAA administrator and co-author of the report, said the findings in the report paint a picture of a “new normal” for the Earth, and could help shape U.S. policy for addressing and becoming more resilient to the impacts of climate change.

The peer-reviewed report, which was released Tuesday, painted a sobering picture of climate change, with record sea-level rise, Arctic melting, and warming oceans. Globally, 2012 ranked either as the 8th or 9th warmest year ever recorded, depending on what dataset was used. The report also found summer Arctic sea ice reached a record low — 18 percent lower than the previous record — in 2012, due in part to the Arctic continuing to warm at about twice the rate of other areas.

“Many of the planning models used in infrastructure planning count on the future being statistically a lot like the past,” Sullivan said. Trends of temperature increases and sea level rise highlighted in the report should challenge those models and should be used as reference for city planners, especially on the coast. Sullivan also warned that the U.S. should be prepared for the likelihood that extreme weather events will only get more intense and more frequent as the planet warms.

Yesterday, Senators Harry Reid (D) & Dean Heller (R) joined their California colleagues, Dianne Feinstein (D) & Barbara Boxer (D), to introduce the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. It authorizes $415 million in critical investment in improving environmental quality in the Tahoe region. It's nice to see all the region's US Senators come together for this. And it would be quite nice if this can actually pass and help bring to an end the insane austerity fetish on Capitol Hill.

However, this isn't enough. Senator Reid has already said so himself, along with Senator Boxer.



It's saddening enough that Lake Tahoe faces a new threat in the climate crisis. However, it doesn't end there. Ultimately, we're all at risk if we don't act soon. We need to take heed of the warning signs now.

Heads in Sand

Amidst all the hype of sensationalized scandals and manufactured crises, it's critical for us to remember the real problems that lie ahead. Manufactured crises come and go, but certain real crises are here to stay. And today, we're seeing some startling news on the greatest global security crisis of our time.

A report out of Stanford University and published in the journal Science shows the extent to which the rate of climate change–a lot of warming in a very short amount of time–is outpacing any other periods of warming or cooling in 65 million years of Earth’s history. If current projections are accurate, the researchers say, that pace will accelerate to 50 or even 100 times faster than anything we’ve seen before. [...]

The authors of the Antarctic study aren’t overly alarmed at their findings, explaining that for the Arctic ice caps to melt at this pace would be much more of a problem. The conclusions of the Stanford study are less optimistic. To keep up with current pace of global warming, says  study author Christopher Field, we need to start adapting on a considerably faster schedule. The outlook for mitigating its effects now, in his estimation, is not so good.

Oh, yes. That's right. Not only is climate change occurring, but it's occurring at a far faster rate than scientists had expected just five years ago.

Climate change is happening, and it's happening at an incredibly fast rate. It's just plain scientific reality. That's what four Republican former EPA Administrators noted in a New York Times op-ed today.

There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.

The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.” [...]

Climate change puts all our progress and our successes at risk. If we could articulate one framework for successful governance, perhaps it should be this: When confronted by a problem, deal with it. Look at the facts, cut through the extraneous, devise a workable solution and get it done.

Yet instead of doing this, House G-O-TEA "leaders" keep peddling more anti-science hogwash. While all the rest of us are concerned about our future, they're still burying their heads in the sand and dreaming of new Twitter hashtags to try to spin away the truth. No matter how good of a game they play with their climate charade, we can see right through them.

We can see the effects right here in Nevada. We can also see what happens when we invest in solutions. So why won't Nevada's Republican Congresscritters ask their colleagues to get in tune with reality?



Next Wednesday will mark the one year anniversary of Senator Harry Reid (D-Searchlight) delivering this amazing speech on climate reality. We've seen some progress since then, no thanks to the Congressional G-O-TEA Caucus. When will they finally get their heads out of the sand? There's a massive climate tsunami coming, and they can't say we didn't warn them.

New Way Forward

Over the years, we've become quite familiar with talk of massive renewable energy projects. We have all this space in the desert. And we want to build up our renewable sector. So full steam ahead?

Over the years, some environmentalists have urged caution, even as other major environmental groups have pushed for more large scale renewable energy projects. Clearly, the "green on green warfare" was quite odd. And it was ultimately counterproductive to both goals of renewable development and open space preservation. So California figured out a new way forward.

These differing views created an uncomfortable "green vs. green" debate, [the Natural Resources Defense Council's Carl] Zichella says. "I think it has been tough. It's been personally painful. We are very good at stopping things, [and] we aren't very good at building things," he says.

In the end, environmental groups negotiated with the Ivanpah project and others one by one to set aside nature preserves in the desert. Learning from this, the state is trying to head off future conflicts with a new plan. The idea is to divvy up the desert into renewable energy zones and zones that are off-limits.

Karen Douglas of the California Energy Commission says it's unusual to see all sides working together.

"There is never any perfect consensus," Douglas says. "But we've got an opportunity with this partnership to put in place what we really think of as the 'greenprint' that will help us conserve our desert resources."

Nevada has begun applying this standard as well, along with other Western states. There has to be a balance of preserving open space and building a renewable future. Especially with climate change already underway, there's not much time left to act.

Unless we invest more in renewable energy development soon, use of coal power will skyrocket. And that’s pretty much the death knell for our climate.

If we can figure out how to balance conservation and development, we can figure out how to make it work overall. Again, we don't have much time left. What are we waiting for? There's a new way forward. We should try it.

Unaffordable Fiction

We've been talking about this for some time here. But for some reason, the 21st Century Know Nothings (and their media enablers) continue pretending as if it's not happening. Yet regardless of their fantasies, climate change is indeed happening... And it's threatening the future of all humanity.

So today, President Obama spoke up on the greatest global security crisis of our time. And below is what he said.

Embracing an issue that could define his legacy but also ignite new battles with Republicans, Mr. Obama said he would use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants.

That was the centerpiece of a three-part plan that includes new federal spending to advance renewable energy technology, as well as spending to protect cities and states from the ravages of storms and droughts that are exacerbated by a changing climate.

Saying science had put to rest the debate over whether human activity was warming the earth, Mr. Obama said, “The question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it is too late.”

“As a president, as a father and as an American, I am here to say, we need to act,” he said to students and others gathered in a sunbaked quadrangle at Georgetown University. “I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that is beyond saving.”

Environmental justice advocates have been waiting for some time for President Obama to announce action. But last week, news finally broke of the President's decision announce executive action on climate change. Since the current Congress has no plans to take on any comprehensive climate legislation, The White House must go it alone on this one.

We've known for some time that action must be taken very soon. Recent extremely severe weather has served even more reminders of this. We just can't afford to deny reality any more.

And this is why Congress is still not off the hook, not even after today's big announcement. After all, they still need to cooperate to guarantee further action (to ensure future human survival).

[... T]he President should not let Congress off the hook. Obama is following through on the promise in his Inaugural Address that if Congress didn’t act on global warming, he would. The fact remains, however, that the most impactful and lasting changes in America’s energy and climate policies require action by Congress, including a price on carbon.

It has proven futile to bludgeon the current Congress into acknowledging the reality of climate change, let alone doing something about it. President Obama should turn the nation’s attention to next year’s mid-term election. If the American people want to curb climate change – and opinion polls show a large majority of the people do — it will take a regime change on Capitol Hill. As the mid-term election approaches, President Obama and his Cabinet should continue driving home that we already are going to suffer a lot more of what we’re getting today – floods, drought, strong hurricanes, wildfires – but that without action, it will get unimaginably worse.

President Obama should not let opponents get away with the tired argument that climate action costs jobs, or weakens the economy, or diverts Washington from the issues that are highest on the public’s priority list. As repeated research has shown, America’s transition to a clean energy economy will be a huge job and business creator, engaging the United States in the largest emerging global market in history.

As we have discussed here many times before, Nevada and the nation stand to gain more jobs and better economic development as the result of strong climate action. So why would any one in Congress (and especially any one representing this state) want to stand in the way of this? Oh wait, that's right. Some there continue to show more interest in fictional scandals than actual policies.

We just can't afford to live in fiction any more. Today has been a very stark reminder of that. President Obama took another major step to solve the climate crisis. We simply can't afford to turn back now.

Why Not Act Already?

Amidst all the recent talk of scandal and conflict and endless "crisis", we've yet to see Congress act on the greatest global security crisis of our time. In addition, we've yet to see what President Obama plans to do on climate change if Congress still can't act. But now, that's about to change. The White House may finally act soon.

The Obama administration is considering a sweeping initiative to address climate change, including the first-ever limits on carbon dioxide from power plants, the country's biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The White House has yet to settle on specific measures, but "we're hearing that existing power plants are definitely in the mix," said a person with knowledge of the deliberations, who, like others, asked not to be identified to talk about White House discussions. An announcement could come by mid-July.

Power plants account for about a third of the country's greenhouse gas emissions, with most of the carbon dioxide coming from coal-fired plants and, to a lesser extent, natural gas generation. Issuing rules to curtail their pollution would almost certainly touch off a battle in the courts and Congress."

There are only a few substantive, meaningful actions the administration can take short of dealing with existing power plants," said S. William Becker, executive director of the National Assn. of Clean Air Agencies, a group of local and state air pollution regulators. "So I'd be extremely surprised if existing power plants weren't one of the top priorities the administration is pursuing."

As long as we've been delaying action on the climate crisis, we've been losing precious time and making necessary change more costly and difficult than it has to be. Perhaps that’s what President Obama has been thinking about lately. If we are to have any chance at future survival, we must act on the climate crisis... And do so very soon.

And then, there's this. Surprise, surprise. Investment in tomorrow's energy pays off.

On Thursday, the Center for American Progress released a newreport that outlines plan for jobs, business, and a growing economy called “300 Million Engines of Growth.”

It notes that climate change’s “costs to businesses, families, and government are often hidden but are becoming less so.” The report goes on to detail ways in which climate solutions “offer massive new economic opportunities.” Just as important, any infrastructure investments should reflect the impact of the consequences of climate change like extreme weather and climate change.

Transitioning from an energy system reliant on energy that gets more expensive as we use it up, to one that gets cheaper the more we use it is a winner for the economy:

"The United States is dependent on imported foreign oil, is subject to volatile energy prices, and is starting to face the high costs of climate change. Each of these pressures creates a drag on economic growth. In 2012 roughly 6 percent of our electricity came from renewables, and the United States imported $313 billion in oil. Our country must capture the multitrillion-dollar opportunity of clean energy by stimulating demand, ensuring effective financing, building efficient transmission infrastructure, and prioritizing efficiency. Our goal is for the United States to have clean, sustainable, and economical energy sources — quadrupling renewable use between 2008 and 2020 and slashing oil imports in half — in order to fuel economic growth."

As we know very well right here in Nevada, going green earns us green. So why wait any longer? Why not act already?

Our fossil fuel addiction is already costing us dearly. And the promise of a lean, mean, clean, and green super machine of a healthier economy won't ever materialize if we don't act soon. So why wait any longer? Why not act already?

In the Wake of the Storm

Yesterday, this horrific tornado ripped through Moore, Oklahoma. As you can see below, it truly was as frightening as we were hearing from survivors yesterday.



Fortunately, we've seen some good news since last night. For one, the death toll has actually been revised downward. It now stands at 24, as some lost victims were counted twice amidst all the chaos of the first few hours after the storm.

Also, charities have been quick to begin delivering aid where it's most needed in Oklahoma. And with continued support, they should be able to continue helping there.



And now, federal assistance should be coming soon... Or will it? Earlier this morning, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) actually demanded "offsets" for any and all federal disaster aid for his own state. No really, he went there.

I've seen many note overnight that Coburn is at least consistent -- there are plenty of politicians who've balked at disaster-relief funds when there's a devastating storm, only to change their minds when their constituents are among the casualties. Coburn, however, has routinely questioned emergency funding for everyone, and apparently wants to apply the same standards to his own home state.

But while consistently is welcome, it doesn't change the questions about unnecessary callousness.

For many years, federal disaster relief was effectively automatic -- there was bipartisan support for quickly responding to American communities in their time of need. It was a reflection of who we are as a people -- when disaster strikes, we're there for the people in affected areas, regardless of politics.

But in recent years, many Republican lawmakers have decided to change the standards. Under the new approach, they'll consider emergency resources, but only if Democrats agree to cut a comparable amount from the budget elsewhere. There's no real economic rationale for this, but for much of the right, the ideological rationale is sufficient.

However since then, Senator Coburn has been quieter about it. His office pledged earlier to work with Congressional colleagues and President Obama to send help without delay. So we'll have to wait and see if Oklahoma Tornado aid becomes as politically thorny as efforts earlier this year to secure aid for Hurricane Sandy victims.

Already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has promised speedy delivery of federal assistance to Oklahoma...

"While we may not know the extent of the damage for some time, we will continue to do everything in our power to help the people of Oklahoma as they recover from these terrible tornadoes," Reid said. "And we will stand vigilant today, ready to send additional assistance as more storms threaten the region."

"Whenever tragedy strikes one part of our nation, it strikes us all. And so I pledge the people of Oklahoma our continued support as they begin to rebuild."

And so has President Obama.



As we discussed last night, austerity has harmed our efforts to both prepare for disasters like this beforehand one and respond to them afterward. And now, some in the "tea party" (including one of Oklahoma's own US Senators?!) want to (mis)use this disaster to force more austerity upon the country? Why? Why must we worsen the toll of this disaster by demanding unnecessary suffering on top of the pain that many in The Midwest are already enduring? Joan Walsh nails the nonsensical insanity of this ideological rigidity.

Especially in the wake of the sequester cuts, the notion that the federal budget is larded with easily eliminated spending is ludicrous. Would Coburn like to see more kids thrown out of Head Start? More seniors losing Meals on Wheels? The federal deficit is shrinking faster than at any time since just after World War II, but Coburn is going to insist that someone, somewhere must lose their federal help so Oklahoma can get it instead.

There’s something so typical about today’s GOP in the way Inhofe can dismiss comparisons between tornado aid and Sandy aid, while Coburn grandstands for his long-term demand that new spending, even on disaster relief, must be “offset” by cuts elsewhere. Meanwhile, the notion that a new disaster relief bill should include funding to cope with future disasters isn’t lauded as common sense, it’s derided as pork. Like Inhofe, Coburn objected to the Sandy bill’s including funding for future disaster relief. (It should be noted that Moore, Okla. Rep. Tom Cole, also a Republican, voted for the Sandy aid bill.)

Just as modern conservatism helped create categories of “deserving” and “undeserving” poor, we now apparently have deserving and undeserving disasters. When tragedy strikes, most Americans tend to want to pull together, but many Republicans look to pull us apart, placing their own constituents’ needs above everyone else’s.

And as we were discussing last night, this likely won't be the last time we see this kind of horror. New research strongly suggests we're in for even more mega-disasters as the climate crisis continues to worsen. No really, think about it. While we don't know how climate change was involved in this specific storm, it's been affecting the overall landscape of Tornado Alley.

Climate change is supposed, among other things, to bring warmer and moister air to earth. That, of course, would lead to more severe thunderstorms and probably more tornadoes. The issue is that global warming is also forecast to bring about less wind shear. This would allow hurricanes to form more easily, but it also would make it much harder for tornadoes to get the full about lift and instability that allow for your usual thunderstorm to grow in height and become a fully-fledged tornado. Statistics over the past 50 years bear this out, as we've seen warmer and more moist air as well as less wind shear.

Meteorological studies differ on whether or not the warmer and moister air can overcome a lack of wind shear in creating more tornadoes in the far future. In the immediate past, the jet stream, possibly because of climate change, has been quite volatile. Some years it has dug south to allow maximum tornado activity in the middle of the country, while other years it has stayed to the north.

Although tornado reporting has in prior decades been not as reliable as today because of a lack of equipment and manpower, it's still not by accident that the six least active and four most active tornado seasons have been felt over the past decade. Another statistic that points to the irregular patterns is that the three earliest and four latest starts to the tornado season have all occurred in the past 15 years.

Basically, we've had this push and pull in recent history. Some years the number of tornadoes is quite high, and some years it is quite low. We're not seeing "average" seasons as much any more, though the average of the extremes has led to no meaningful change to the average number of tornadoes per year. Expect this variation to continue into the future as less wind shear and warmer moister air fight it out.

The overall result could very well be fewer days of tornadoes per Harold Brooks of the National Storm Center, but more and stronger tornadoes when they do occur. Nothing about the tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, or tornadoes over the past few decades break with this theory.

Over 30 million people worldwide were displaced last year due to climate change related natural disasters. How much more evidence do we need here? How much more disaster must we endure before we act to save ourselves and each other?

In the wake of the storm, we face some difficult questions to answer. How will we answer them? Will we give the people of Oklahoma the helping hand up that they so desperately need? And will we be proactive in preparing for a dangerous future?

Missing the Real Scandal

So far this week, media pundits have been fast to declare winners and losers in the new "Scandal-mania" craze that's taken over The Beltway. And as usual, they're missing the real story. In reality, we're all losing.

How so? We're not paying enough attention to what truly matters while we continue obsessing over what doesn't. Case in point: this.

What does it take to grab us by the eyeballs? Chris Christie’s waistline is guaranteed wall-to-wall coverage. The next Jodi Arias is waiting in CNN’s wings. The Benghazi circus will be in town at least through 2016. Sure, disaster porn is always good for ratings, but though a Superstorm Sandy may momentarily raise the specter of climate change, daily bulletins on the parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere apparently aren’t Nielsen enough.

It’s not that people who know our planet’s hair is on fire aren’t trying to get our attention. The animated graph from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration‘s Earth Science Research Lab showing how atmospheric carbon dioxide has changed over the last 800,000 years should be as horrifying as any computer-generated imagery Hollywood has to offer. Along with the news that we had hit the 400 ppm mark on the CO2 curve for the first time since the Pliocene epoch came scary quotes from scientist after scientist calling this our last chance before the point of no return. Unless we act, children born today will see temperatures rise irreversibly and sea levels rise catastrophically. Weather patterns will be disrupted, deserts and drought will spread and—in the words of Lord Stern, head of the U.K.’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment—“hundreds of millions of people will be forced to leave their homelands because their crops and animals will have died … [W]hen they try to migrate into new lands … [they will be brought] into armed conflict with people already living there. Nor will it be an occasional occurrence. It could become a permanent feature of life on Earth.” [...]

Last week, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) gave a floor speech urging his colleagues to “awaken to what carbon pollution is doing to our planet, to our oceans, to our seasons, to our storms. And I wonder, ‘Why is it that we are so comfortable asleep, when the warnings are so many and so real?’ What could beguile us away from wakefulness and duty? I was recently at a Senate meeting where I heard a member of our Senate community say, ‘God won’t allow us to ruin our planet.’ … [That] statement … is less an expression of religious thinking than it is of magical thinking.”

Last week, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse tried to capture the attention of his colleagues. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Searchlight Strong) has also attempted to do this. But alas, it's sexier and more politically expedient to bloviate on the new (and even the not-so-new) haute faux scandals.

While so many on Capitol Hill are fixated on the haute faux scandals, they're missing sight of the real scandal brewing at our front door. Yet away from DC, reality can't be avoided. And US Secretary of State John Kerry lamented the myopic view from Capitol Hill while preparing for an Arctic Council meeting in Sweden.

“I have to say that I regret that my own country — and President Obama knows this and is committed to changing it — needs to do more and we are committed to doing more,” Kerry said in Sweden at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. [...]

The melting of Arctic ice is opening opportunities for energy development and shipping. But it’s also raising the prospect of ecological damage and new geopolitical competition as nations compete for access.

“And we come here to Kiruna with a great understanding of the challenge to the Arctic as the ice melts, as the ecosystem is challenged, the fisheries, and the possibilities of increased commercial traffic as a result of the lack of ice raises a whole set of other issues that we need to face up to,” Kerry said, according to a State Department transcript.

“So it’s not just an environmental issue and it’s not just an economic issue. It is a security issue, a fundamental security issue that affects life as we know it on the planet itself, and it demands urgent attention from all of us,” he said.

We've discussed the horrifying transformation of the Arctic Region here before. We just need to get Congress to notice.

What makes this even more infuriating is how we actually stand to gain from solving the climate crisis. We especially know this right here in Nevada, where renewable energy has helped reignite our state's economy. We need to kick our fossil fuel addition to the curb if we are to have any chance at future survival, and we need to shift to renewable energy to refuel and retool the economy.

Are far too many in Congress and the Beltway pundit circle missing the real scandal? Absolutely. That's why we need to act... And compel Congress (&/or The White House) to finally act. Inaction on the climate crisis is the real scandal here.

Will Nevada Republicans Put State Interests Above Party Politics?

So he's out. (Federal) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chair Greg Jazcko announced his resignation this morning. And since Congressional Republicans were already making noise about reviving the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump here in Nevada, it's likely that they'll try to shove it down our throats yet again as Congress must now find a replacement.

So this leaves the Republicans in Nevada's Congressional Delegation in a pickle. Do they do what's best for the state by joining the bipartisan coalition to prevent Nevada from becoming a radioactive wasteland? Or do they obey the commands from national G-O-TEA leadership to screw Nevada once and for all?

Mark Amodei has already turned his back on his constituents by supporting efforts to reopen Yucca and start "nuclear reprocessing activities" in our state. Oh, and we can't forget that Joe Heck actually got this toxic ball rolling with his amendment to allow "nuclear processing" at Yucca. What neither of them wants to admit is that even their preferred "compromise" is actually nothing more than a back door for their G-O-TEA colleagues to sneak dangerous nuclear material into Nevada.

Really, it's a shame that Heck and Amodei have sold us down the river to curry favor with the nuclear power industry and House Republican leadership. Despite the fact that even prominent Republicans like Governor Brian Sandoval and Senator Dean Heller oppose nuclear activity at Yucca, they don't seem to care. Instead, they're pressing on and trying to make us swallow the nuclear industry's toxic crap.

So now, we must wait and see if they will continue to capitulate. Oh, and we'll have to wait and see just how strong Heller's opposition to Yucca really is. If his US Senate G-O-TEA colleagues filibuster Jazcko's NRC replacement, will Heller join them? Or will he let that position be filled so the NRC can continue its work? What happens in the coming days will tell us plenty about our Republican Congresscritters' true commitment to our state, the state that they're supposed to represent and serve.

Why Do They Still Want Nevada Nuked?

Last August, Joe Heck introduced an amendment that would allow nuclear reprocessing at Yucca Mountain. It sent a signal to national Republicans and DC pundits that Nevada Republicans were becoming much more malleable on Yucca (and Nevada's safety and economic well-being) than ever before. Now, Mark Amodei is ready to capitulate "strike a deal" on Yucca.

Last spring, Nevada didn’t have anyone in Congress who was open to the idea of bringing nuclear waste to the state. Now, it has Republican Rep. Mark Amodei — and he says he’s ready to take on the pro-Yucca enthusiasts and try to work out a compromise.

It’s the first specific test of how far he’s willing to push his party on Yucca, and when they push back, whether he’ll fall into party line or object with his vote, as several Nevada representatives have before him. [...]

In the House, there’s probably no Yucca agitator more vocal than Illinois Rep. John Shimkus, who led a delegation of lawmakers to Yucca Mountain last year and has told colleagues he’s tired of Reid’s pushback.

But Amodei believes he can talk to Shimkus and that the time is ripe to start a conversation.

Despite his readiness to pursue a third way, Amodei may nonetheless find himself running up procedural quirks of the legislative process that have stymied lawmakers before him, including Nevada Rep. Joe Heck’s best-intentioned efforts to strike a compromise solution last year.

When presented last year’s almost identical appropriations legislation on Yucca, Heck, who is opposed to bringing nuclear waste to the state, attempted to repurpose $25 million to go toward a nuclear reprocessing research facility at the site instead. Amodei believes that for Yucca Mountain to be feasible as a reprocessing research facility, Nevada would have to accept the waste.

Well, at least Amodei is being a little more honest in his capitulation "move to compromise" than Heck. Joe Heck tried to argue last year that he really didn't want to allow nuclear waste to be trucked into the state, but his attempt at compromise was dead from the start mostly because Nye County doesn't have nearly enough water needed for the kind of reprocessing Heck championed. It was really just another attempt to keep Yucca open so that G-O-TEA dreams of a nuclear waste dump in Nevada wouldn't die.

And now, we have yet another attempt at reviving Yucca. Yet despite the overwhelming and bipartisan opposition to Yucca (with even Dean Heller and Brian Sandoval flatly opposed!), Mark Amodei and Joe Heck keep playing footsie with out-of-state G-O-TEA radicals looking to shove toxic waste down our throats. Never mind that Yucca lies on an active fault and would be an extremely dangerous place to store radioactive waste, Heck and Amodei want to be "good team players" and stay in John Boehner's good graces.

So do they really represent Nevada?

What a Waste, Or Why Southern Nevada's "Water Crisis" Doesn't Have to Be One

Over the weekend, Will Doig wrote this article for Salon.com on the coming Sun Belt water crisis. Across the once fast growing "Sun Belt" of Southern and Southwestern cities, local governments are running into trouble as they're realizing the water is running out... Or is it?

“When I talk to water utility people, one of the things I say to them is, ‘I bet most of you aren’t planning how to manage your water demands with 20 percent less than what you have now,’” says Charles Fishman, author of “The Big Thirst.” “If you don’t have a plan for that, you’re in trouble.”

You’ll find Fishman’s book in the nature section at Barnes & Noble, but it’s really about urban planning. Because the creeping hydro-crisis has nothing to do with “running out of water.” The earth has the same amount of water as it had 4 billion years ago, and it always will. “It’s all Tyrannosaurus rex pee,” says Fishman with a laugh. The water’s recycled endlessly through the clouds, but it’s the way we’ve built that’s made it seem scarce — with industry, farming and cities in places where there’s not enough water to support them, but still demanding more every year.

Luckily, an urban-planning problem can be mitigated with urban-planning solutions, and cities are blazing the trail — including, believe it or not, Sin City itself. Today, Vegas is soaked in “reclaimed water,” water that’s been used once and then purified for another go-round. It waters the golf courses and washes the thousands of hotel bed sheets. Even the pond at Treasure Island, where the nightly pirate-ship battles take place, is filled with water that the hotel’s guests have brushed their teeth with. (It gets run through a treatment plant under the casino.)

But even reclaimed water has a way of vanishing in a place where the sun shines 300 days a year — some estimates suggest Lake Mead loses half its water to evaporation. One solution? Store it underground, says Tom Brikowski, professor of hydrology at the University of Texas-Dallas. “It could work in a lot of places and it’s starting to be done now.” For instance, Tampa, Fla., is trying it out with a method called aquifer storage and recovery, pumping water into the earth when it rains, then extracting it during the drier months.

SNWA - THIRSTY from Kurt Rauf on Vimeo.

Funny enough, SNWA produced that ad years ago. And funny enough, SNWA looked poised last decade to lead the nation in forming innovative and progressive water conservation measures. But now that Nevada State Engineer Jason King has green-lighted the proposed Snake Valley "water grab" from rural Eastern Nevada and Western Utah, SNWA seems to be slacking off in the conservation department as it rewards the region's biggest "water hogs" over small users in Clark County who have been working to conserve water. And now that SNWA is feeling emboldened by recent news, it's raising rates disproportionately on small users in order to fund the Snake Valley Pipeline.

Remember that the Snake Valley Pipeline began as a scheme way to make feasible Harvey Whittemore's proposed Coyote Springs exurban development that he wanted to stretch all the way to Lincoln County. Yet despite all the political and legal fallout over Harvey Whittemore and the budding scandals surrounding him, SNWA still plans to proceed with this pipeline. Why?

SNWA "Water Czar" Pat Mulroy has claimed this is all about preparing for the future. Tensions are rising over negotiations for Colorado River water, and Mulroy continues to say Southern Nevada must prepare for the worst, which would be Lake Mead's water level dropping below 1,050 feet. This would force Hoover Dam to shut off its hydroelectric plant, and it would throw Clark County's primary supply of drinking water into severe doubt.

So why pump in water from 300-400 miles away? That's where Mulroy's case gets weak. If Clark County has been able to avoid catastrophe for the past two decades by employing intense conservation efforts, why is SNWA now poised to drop at least some of those conservation efforts? Strangely enough, a smarter option for Greater Las Vegas' future may lie right in the heart of TEXAS.

Yes, you read me right. Let's go back to that Salon.com article for a moment to see how.

[... I]n San Antonio, conserving water is a religion. In the ’90s, the city was sued by the Sierra Club for draining the Edwards Aquifer. The aquifer happens to be the home of the Texas blind salamander, an endangered amphibian. A small culture war ensued, but after a few years of predictable hippies-versus-cowboys animus, something incredible happened: San Antonio became a capital of conservation chic. Low-flush toilets became status symbols, and overwatering your lawn could get a person ostracized. Water consumption dropped from 200 to 130 gallons per person per day. And suddenly, droughts that crippled neighboring cities weren’t affecting San Antonians. “I hate to say ‘big government,’” says [Tom Brikowski, professor of hydrology at the University of Texas-Dallas], “but these regional plans where everyone shares the sacrifice are pretty effective.”

Compare that to Brikowski’s hometown of Dallas, the “water hog” of Texas, where no such stigma exists, and the average resident uses more than twice as much water as a San Antonian. Between 1980 and 1999, as other big Texas cities slashed their water consumption, Dallas’ grew by 35 percent. And now Dallas, like Vegas, is looking for water elsewhere — specifically, east Texas and Oklahoma. “It’s not that they need the water to survive,” one irate east Texan told the Wall Street Journal. “What they want is to destroy our wildlife so they’ll have enough water for their grass.”

Like us, Dallas is looking for water... And now lusting after water found in East Texas and Oklahoma. Yet even as some Dallas officials are whining about ongoing drought conditions affecting the whole State of Texas, San Antonio doesn't seem to be worrying about any drought crisis. Simply because San Antonio made smart decisions early on in turning to conservation instead of "water grab" boondoggles, San Antonio is humming along just fine.

And here's the kicker. Even with drought conditions, Dallas still got 26 inches of rain last year. And even with that drought, Dallas still dumped tons of wastewater into the Trinity River... That the City of Houston is now recycling and reusing for its local water needs!

Wow. What a waste.

So if San Antonio and Houston can work on innovative solutions to water shortages brought on by past suburban development as well as the present reality of climate change, why can't Las Vegas?

Last week, The Salt Lake Tribune posted a stinging editorial rebuking the Nevada State Engineer's approval of the Snake Valley Pipeline. Believe it or not, the water there affects Utah's health, environment, and well-being in more ways than Pat Mulroy is willing to admit.

The trouble with this approach is that, unlike surface water in a river, the effects of underground pumping often are not immediately seen. Plants could die off only slowly. Once the damage is apparent, however, it may be irreversible, and the political pressure to keep pumping water south, particularly after Las Vegas had invested billions in the pipeline project, would be enormous. The complaints of a few ranchers in Nevada and the people of Utah would not count for much. [...]

There’s not a lot of water in the Great Basin to begin with, and it’s not like Las Vegas could give it back to be pumped into the ground again. Monetary damages could not undo the mischief, and there’s nowhere else to go to get replacement water.

If predictions about climate change are correct, and the amount of snowpack that provides groundwater to the Great Basin is on the decline, then there’s even worse trouble.

In his ruling in favor of the water district that serves Las Vegas, Nevada State Engineer Jason King dismissed the objections of people who worry about climate change because no evidence was submitted. However, the scientific consensus for climate change argues against going forward instead of plowing ahead.

We throw in with Utahns who worry about dust clouds enveloping Utah from denuded valleys to the west. We also believe the warnings of Snake Valley ranchers who say that well levels already are falling. Sucking more water from this environment is folly.

So why again is SNWA doing this? It would destroy the ecosystem of rural Eastern Nevada and Western Utah, as well as destroy the livelihood of local farmers and ranchers there. It could harm air quality in and around Salt Lake City. It would cost Clark County taxpayers many billions of dollars when we desperately need money for local schools, parks, transportation, and community services. And it just looks like pure folly when we have better options right in our own back yard (in some cases, literally!).

So why is SNWA doing this? All I see here is waste.

Surprise! California Balks at Trashing Tahoe.

Who could have guessed that last year's "Trash Tahoe Bill" would get such an icy reception across state lines? Who could have guessed? Steve Sebelius noted it yesterday, and The LA Times posted more today on California's response to Nevada's SB 271.

Last year, Nevada state Sen. John Lee [D-North Las Vegas] sponsored a bill that would pave the way for development in the Tahoe basin. Specifically, the legislation calls for loosening the bi-state governing board's voting requirements, effectively making it easier to change environmental standards. Under the law, if the conditions aren't met by late 2015, Nevada will walk.

In a letter to Lee on Wednesday, [California State Senate Leader Darrell] Steinberg [D-Sacramento] called the legislation "both unnecessarily inflammatory and deeply counter-productive."

"One can only imagine how leaders in Nevada would react if California were to take similar action," he wrote. "It is both surprising and disappointing to see a national treasure as important as Lake Tahoe become a political hostage to the agenda of special interest groups who have little interest in the many values the region provides."

The letter comes as the states argue over the density and scale of redevelopment. The bi-state compact was established by federal legislation in 1969 to protect the lake after years of loosely regulated development had paved over parts of the basin and clouded its stunningly clear waters. [...]

In his letter, Steinberg said he had appointed a delegation of lawmakers to work with Nevada on Tahoe issues. "I want to express my openness to new, thoughtful, and creative approaches to addressing the challenges relating to Lake Tahoe," he wrote, "provided they are consistent with the priorities" of the compact.

And frankly, I don't blame Steinberg and his fellow California legislators who are appalled by our legislature sticking them with this reckless action. I guess just because a few well connected lobbyists, along with a certain legislator, own property on Tahoe and want to profit off more development there doesn't mean California's legislators are prepared to trash Tahoe. Thanks to the ridiculously shortsighted SB 271 that passed last year, the entire Lake Tahoe Compact is in danger of falling apart.

So now, Steinberg is offering to send a delegation of California State Senators to negotiate with our state on how to move forward on Tahoe. I hope our legislators take some time to rethink the huge mistake they made in passing SB 271 (especially the ones who held hostage last year's budget over it) as they prepare to meet with the California delegation. So far, California (rightly) wants nothing to do with disemboweling the environmental safeguards necessary to protect Lake Tahoe for future generations, so Nevada needs to drop the hissy fit pushed by big developers and agree to a path forward for Tahoe that will preserve the lake for all Nevadans and Californians.

Dirty Cup of G-O-TEA

Apparently, the fossil fuel industry just dropped a cool $1.2 million into "Nevada Fracas Caucus" winner Willard "Mr. 1%" Romney's Super PAC. And what have they gotten out of Willard? See for yourself.

With [Texas Governor Rick] Perry out of the race, Romney has received more money from mining and oil than any other presidential candidate. The pro-Perry super PAC “Make Us Great Again” took in an outstanding $1.3 million from oil companies and executives during the last six months of his run.

Although Restore Our Future has no “formal” ties to the candidate, the donations reflect Romney’s right pivot on energy and climate concerns. The Massachusetts governor that once supported regulations on coal pollution, has since questioned whether carbon is even dangerous. In addition to becoming a climate denier, he now blasts government support for cleaner energy — despite creating a state green fund as governor.

You can expect Romney to sound suspiciously like his rich polluting backers, as dirty money continues to flood Restore Our Future and Romney’s campaign stash.

And that's not all. While Romney was campaigning here in Nevada, he actually told the RGJ editorial board that he doesn't know "what the purpose is" of public lands. I guess Mittens doesn't know his history or his economics.

Romney’s statement stands in stark contrast to the conservative tradition of knowing the value of protecting the lands that belong to all of us places for future generations. Teddy Roosevelt, the great Republican conservationist, once said, “Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation.”

Public lands in Nevada – and other western states—actually provide an enormous economic boost and sustain hundreds of thousands of jobs. Indeed, recent Interior Department statistics show that federally managed public lands in Nevada provided over $1 billion in economic impacts and supported 13,311 jobs in 2010 (and this statistic doesn’t even include the economic impacts of Forest Service lands, managed by the Department of Agriculture). Recreation, energy and minerals, and grazing and timber all play a part in the economic effects that public lands provide to Nevada. Activities like skiing at Lake Tahoe, boating at Lake Mead, and hiking at Great Basin National Park all take place on public lands.

Either that, or perhaps his better judgment is being clouded by all those campaign donations by the fossil fuel industry. Hey, Desert Beacon may be onto something here. We're obviously doing quite well in providing jobs with public lands kept with the public's best interest in mind. ExxonMobil can't make money from that. Where's the "Drill, Baby, Drill!" when they need it?

Well, at least ExxonMobil is avoiding paying taxes on a whole lot of its profits. In fact, ExxonMobil pays a lower tax rate (17.6%) than most Americans. And it and other big oil companies can do so thanks to the G-O-TEA Congresscritters' votes to protect their tax bailouts. And yes, Nevada's own Senator Dean Heller (R-Fossil Fuel Industry BFF) voted with Big Oil. And considering Dean Heller netted $156,000 in fossil fuel industry donations, it makes perfect (dollars &) cents for Heller to vote for his BFFs.



So with Dean Heller already selling out Nevadans' best interests in Congress, is it any surprise that Mitt Romney is doing the same with his Presidential Campaign (and aligned Super PACs)? We know what will get our economy going again while also doing something about the greatest global security threat of our time. Yet instead of jumping forward with clean energy, G-O-TEA lackeys like Heller and Romney prefer to keep us mired in the dirty past with the fossil fuel industry that just happens to fuel their campaigns.

Are We Whistling Past Our Own Graveyard?

Something quite scary is happening... And sadly enough, you probably aren't seeing it on the evening news. If you think our freaky weather is bad now, you "ain't seen nothing yet".

“Warming and associated loss of snowpack will persist over much of the western United States,” Assistant DOI secretary Anne Castle said in her written testimony to the water and power subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. A recent Bureau of Reclamation report, Castle said, has concluded that “this loss of snowpack storage is expected to result in a decrease in the amount of reliable water supply in areas where snow has been a major component of the hydrologic system.”

The Senate subcommittee hearing comes a week after the Global Climate Project reported that worldwide carbon dioxide emissions from the combusion of fossil fuels had risen by 5.9 percent in 2010, the biggest annual increase in history.

Climate change is already producing dramatic changes in the water cycle in the U.S., and more changes are coming, according to the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program’s 2009 report on climate change impacts.

“Evidence is mounting that human-induced climate change is already altering many many of the exsiting patterns of precipitation in the United States, including when, where, how much, and what kind of precipitation falls,” the report says. And it predicts that “dry areas will become drier and and wet areas wetter,” with particularly severe effects in the Southwest which is expected to have more severe and more prolonged droughts.

Here in Nevada (and especially down south in Clark County), we rely on that melting snowpack for the bulk of our water supply. Without that water filling the Colorado River, we're really screwed.

Yet again, we're reminded of the dangers we face with unchecked climate change. And yet again, the increasingly extreme weather we're already seeing shows us that we can't keep ignoring this real crisis. And despite constant efforts to make us forget this, Americans are realizing just how dangerous this climate crisis is.

So why aren't we seeing real action on climate change? We really need to do some soul searching on that. And the LA Times is asking us just that.

Climate change is no longer a theoretical concept to be debated at symposiums by science nerds. It is happening right here, right now. Thirteen of the warmest years on record worldwide have happened in the past 15 years. In the U.S., 12 weather-related disasters this year have caused in excess of $1 billion in damage each, a record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Although many expected the global economic downturn to slow the output of greenhouse gases, emissions actually have been accelerating at an alarming rate, growing 5.9% in 2010 — the biggest jump since 2003. The American response? Fiddling around. [...]

The U.S. position at the [UN climate] talks [in Durban, South Africa] can be described as, well, nuanced. Chief climate negotiator Todd Stern says that he favors a legally binding treaty to replace Kyoto (which the U.S. Senate never ratified), but only if it holds developing nations such as China and India to the same mandatory standards as industrialized countries such as the U.S. Yet he acknowledges that those nations will never go along with such a deal, so countries should just make voluntary pledges to cut emissions and hold themselves accountable. In other words: "I will now perform Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto in D Major. Does anybody else smell smoke?"

The voluntary approach isn't getting us far. At last year's climate conference in Cancun, the world agreed to limit the rise in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius higher than the pre-industrial norm. Yet that goal can't be met under the current global pledges of voluntary reductions, leading to predictions of up to 4 degrees of warming by the end of the century. That would mean catastrophic sea-level rise, drought, famine and weather-related carnage. Fortunately, we'll all be dead by then. But our progeny will not thank us.

Indeed, they won't if we continue with our (thus far) inadequate response to climate change. And they surely won't if we continue to pay attention to "leaders" who refuse to lead on this critical issue.

So when will we truly start to take the lead on this? Again, we're already seeing the results of past inaction. This year's wildfires, such as the Caughlin fire in Reno last month, should have been another wake-up call. When will we wake up and do something?

Why Aren't We on This?

This morning, The Sun published a poignant editorial on what happened today (70 years ago) and why it still matters.

As we look back and remember Pearl Harbor and honor the sacrifices of those who died, were wounded and fought on that day — as well as those who fought in World War II — we can’t forget the sacrifices of the entire nation.

After Pearl Harbor, the country staged a unified and prolonged war effort. Everyone sacrificed. Food, fuel and goods were rationed to support the war. People planted “victory gardens” to increase the food supply.

Such an effort hasn’t been matched, and it arguably hasn’t been needed, since then. But what’s noticeably absent today is any larger sense of sacrifice.

A decade ago, the 9/11 attacks seared current generations of Americans, rallying the nation together. Like Pearl Harbor, America embarked on a war. Although it is a very different type of war — it blurs national lines and runs along ideology — it is arguably far more dangerous because there aren’t clear battle lines, nor are there clearly defined enemies.

However, Americans have far less direct involvement in the war effort than they did during World War II. In World War II, there was a military draft. Today, the military is an all-volunteer force, and only a tiny percentage of Americans have actually fought overseas in Iraq or Afghanistan, much less been in the service.

And the sacrifices of scrimping and saving to pay for the war effort? Americans haven’t been asked to sacrifice this time. Instead, the war on terrorism has been added to the nation’s debt.

Unfortunately, this rings very true today. After 9/11, we were just told to go shopping. And when the Iraq War began, Americans were told to be "patriotic" by slapping yellow ribbon magnets on the backs of their SUVs (and remember not to say anything derogatory about George W. Bush... Or else...).

But today, we have an opportunity to invest in a brighter future. And this time, all we have to sacrifice are pollution and an addiction to a certain black substance we import from abroad. And believe it or not, Warren Buffett is ready to take action on it!

Warren Buffett’s MidAmerican Energy Holdings company has agreed to buy a giant, 550-megawatt photovoltaic farm currently under construction in San Luis Obispo County for $2 billion, giving a huge boost to the solar industry that could spur investment by other major players.

The "utility-scale" facility MidAmerican is purchasing is being built by First Solar Inc. of Tempe, Ariz. A spokesman for First Solar, Alan Bernheimer, said the farm would produce enough power to provide for the energy needs of 160,000 California homes. But the investment had deeper meaning for an industry that still has only a small footprint in the nation's energy mix and has been battered by recent bankruptcies.

"In a lot of ways, this is classic Warren Buffett," said Bruce Bullock, executive director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University. "He comes in to an industry that is starving for capital investment. At the same time, this is something that also tells people it's time to take solar power seriously."

Solar power currently provides just 1% of the nation's renewable power generation, according to the Energy Department. But it is also the nation's fastest-growing energy generation platform, said Michelle Kinman, a clean-energy advocate for Environment California.

"Solar is a sound investment," Kinman said, "a fact bolstered by MidAmerican's announcement today."

Before Buffett's big announcement, global investment in renewable energy already surpassed $1 trillion. And now that Buffett is in, that number only stands to increase. Yet as many in the private sector realize the fortune to be made in the green economy, we see continued inaction in the public arena.

Why?

Remember when this ad was on the air?



Now, Newt Gingrich tries to act like it didn't happen. And Jon Huntsman keeps flipping on his climate flop. All of a sudden, climate science has become total "taboo".

And as the G-O-TEA continues its war on science, our country continues to fall behind in the race for a greener future. Republicans in Congress are fighting renewable energy tax credits and overall investment in clean technology. Even as millions of Americans are still looking for work, the G-O-TEA is out to kill more jobs and further hurt our economy.



We know the problem. And we know the solutions we need to implement. And we know that the solutions won't just help us escape the climate crisis, but also help us kick our addiction to the fossil fuels swirling at the center of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, as well as many more of our foreign policy challenges.

Just as "The Greatest Generation" had unique challenges to rise above with The Great Depression and World War II, we have our challenges to face with the current global economy and the worsening climate crisis. We need to take action, and do so soon. Are we up for it?