Interested parties can now let the agency know what they think on EPA’s new interactive Web page (I’d love to a fly on that digital wall). Additionally, agency officials will be made available occasionally online for interactive chat sessions. The first of these was held last Thursday, when EPA’s chief information officer Molly O’Neill was made available for answering questions interactively online.

It is no secret that, under the Bush administration, the EPA has cut back on information available to the public through channels like the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and the EPA libraries. The administration has also been under tremendous scrutiny for interference with EPA science on several separate occasions throughout the last seven years. And in a recent report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, 900 employees of the EPA feel like their work has been interfered with for political reasons; sixty-percent of those who responded to the Union’s survey encountered some form of executive manipulation.

With new evidence of tampering and data manipulation continuing to mount on what seems like a daily basis, the “national dialogue” could not have come a minute later - that is if the EPA wants to salvage any shred of its rapidly waning legitimacy.

The initiative may indicate a desire on behalf of the EPA to repair the bruised relationships between the agency and the public, and to restore public confidence in the EPA’s ability to perform its duties without political interference from the White House. And while I applaud this effort, perhaps the EPA could adopt their “national dialogue” as a standard practice, as opposed to closing it at the end of June - as if there will be nothing left to say come July.

Related Posts:

“Bush Administration Just Says ‘No’ to Science” :: Red, Green, and Blue (4/2008)

“Thank You Bush for Weakening Smog Limits” :: Red, Green, and Blue (3/2008)

The Morale Problem
The recent cover story by Margaret Kriz the National Journal paints a rather dramatic picture of the downward spiraling morale at the EPA and the agency’s decrease in overall effectiveness as a result. Legal experts say that even more than under Bush’s two previous administrators, Christine Todd Whitman and Mike Leavitt, Johnson’s EPA is regularly pushed around by politically powerful advisers at the White House and in other departments. The article states that agency morale is almost as bad as it was in the early 1980s after President Reagan appointed pro-industry Anne Gorsuch Burford to head it. Georgetown Law Professor Danield Esty, said that the current administration has pulled the EPA

“[O]ff to the extreme end of the right-wing perspective on the environment, reflecting not even a consensus within the Republican Party but the views of some who are particularly hostile to the agency’s historic mission.”

The Money Problem
At a time when the nation’s top environmental regulators face increasingly complex pollution problems, President Bush is pushing for dramatic cuts in EPA’s budget. The White House’s proposed fiscal 2009 budget would provide just $7.1 billion — fewer actual dollars than EPA has received in any fiscal year since 1997.

Riding It Out
In the meantime, disgruntled EPA professionals are longing for the day when the next administration takes over their agency and they can go to work knowing that their science will receive the attention it deserves and the funding it requires. A scathing editorial in Nature wrote that

“In a rational world, Johnson would resign in favour of someone who could at least feign an interest in the environment. Alas, it seems that he will probably stay on until January 2009, refusing waivers, fighting lawsuits and further depressing employees’ morale.”

The National Journal
Nature
Photo courtesy of keeping it real via flickr

According to the Grist, “the EPA set both the ‘public health’ standard (how much ozone is permitted in one place at one time) and the ‘public welfare’ standard (consideration of the long-term effect of ozone) at the same level.” Before Bush’s command, the EPA had planned to make the “public welfare” standard more stringent, though not as low as their scientists were recommending. Bush’s orders sent the agency scrambling to avoid conflict with past EPA statements on the harmful effects of ozone. As quoted in the Washington Post, John Walke, clean-air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, explained:

It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference for the president personally to override a decision that the Clean Air Act leaves exclusively to EPA’s expert scientific judgment.

So the next time you take a deep breath of smog filled air, responsible for heart and respiratory illnesses, thank the president for once again protecting the “public welfare” of big business.

Image source: noezbuckets

A Navajo Nation enterprise has filed a lawsuit against the US Environmental Protection Agency Tuesday for dragging its feet on an air permit for a proposed coal-fired power plant. Dine Power Authority of the Navajo Nation and Houston-based Sithe Global Power have partnered to build the $3 billion, 1500 megawatt Desert Rock plant. The group filed for a permit back in 2004 and is still awaiting a final decision. “Time is money,” said Steven Begay, the general manager of DPA. Begay added, “Sithe is spending money, and we’re spending money. The longer we wait, the more money we spend … and we don’t want to do that. We want to move forward.”

Sithe has alredy invested about $20 million in the project and the lawsuit claims the tribe is losing $5 million per month in tax revenue for each month the permit is delayed. The investor group announced in January that they would be suing the agency, and that they would be represented by friend of ‘big energy,’ Giuliani and Bracewell. Apparently Rudy Giuliani will find ways to assert his political will, even if he can’t be President.

The air permit would set limits for emissions covered under the federal Clean Air Act, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulates and lead emissions. Both federal officials and Desert Rock developers have said the draft permit contains some of the strictest controls ever set for a coal-fired power plant in the United States.

But not everyone is as excited about what would be the third coal-fired power plant in the Four-Corners region. Environmental groups, and Navajo environmentalists argue that Desert Rock would be unhealthy for local residents and the environment. This, like most other power plant sitings, is an issue of environmental health and justice. The New Mexico Environment Department and others have criticized the draft permit for not including enforceable conditions to address adverse visibility and for not analyzing mercury or carbon dioxide emissions. Others have complained that a better understanding of existing air quality conditions in the Four Corners region is needed before acceptable standards can be set for Desert Rock.

As awareness about global climate change has deepened in the US, the pace of permitting new coal-fired power plants has fallen-off considerably. Big coal is mounting a big pushback to fend off coal’s image as a dirty fuel and win favor in the court of public opinion. Until the feds either pass meaningful climate legislation, or the EPA takes a firm stance on regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (as they were instructed by the Supreme Court), there is not much for EPA policymakers to hang their hats on.

My belief is that there are some very wise people at the EPA who are blocking a decision on this permit until there has been a clearer signal from the administration, or a precedent-setting case brought to the Supreme Court. At least, that is my hope.

Gallup Independent

CNN/Money

Desert Rock Blog

Desert Rock Clean Air Proposed Permit

Photo: Wolfgang Staudt

George W. Bush has definitely been a polarizing personality in his two terms as leader of the United States of America. From the beginning and his War on Iraq he has seemingly attempted to paint himself as nothing more than a moronic menace. Of late, Bush has turned his sights on becoming the world’s greatest environmental foe.

Some may call my words harsh. Others will praise them. They are however, nothing more than my personal opinion about him.

However his actions against the environment are both unquestionable and unconscionable.

A recent Reuters article stated that ‘In cases this week dealing with polar bears, ozone smog and environmental research, groups that monitor these decisions faulted the Bush administration for slighting science in favor of politics.’ I feel that, in looking at the past few months, this statement fails to explain just how Bush has thrown his weight around.

On Wednesday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released new 8-hour primary and secondary ozone standards of 75 parts per million. This was down from the previous limit which set it at 80 parts per million, but was still well above limits proposed not only by environmental and advocacy groups, but the members of the EPA itself.

Senator Hillary Clinton said in a statement on her website that “President Bush opened a new front in his administration’s war on science this week. His personal intervention to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency’s new limits on ozone proves that he has abandoned even a pretense of scientific integrity in decision-making. His efforts are directly at odds not only with accepted science, but with his government’s own arguments before the United States Supreme Court.”

“This is only the latest in a long series of examples where the Bush administration’s perversion of science helps special interests at the expense of public health — though it is certainly one of the more brazen. I will work with Senate Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer to investigate the President’s decision and to hold him accountable,” she added.

In response to criticism and by way of explanation, White House spokesman Tony Fratto explained that “What we were trying to do on the smog decision was try to have a decision that was consistent with our interpretation of the statute. This was not a weakening of regulations or standards governing ozone, but it was an effort to make those standards consistent.”

However many groups believe that these new regulations are built around coal-fired power plants and other industries that emit ground-level ozone.

“This is a pattern unfortunately that extends across the Environmental Protection Agency, across pretty much every science based agency in the federal government,” said Tim Donaghy of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

I’ll hold it there for the moment, and come to the polar bears soon. Needless to say, if we continue to see behavior like this from Bush, or even from other world leaders, we’re screwed.

Photo Courtesy of rkimpeljr via Flickr

In a head-spinning move, the EPA complied, citing that the reports are not used by local emergency workers and are thus, unnecessary. Unnecessary to whom? It seems valid that the acknowledged threat to residents living and working nearby would be important information.

Unless, of course, they could be used in a lawsuit against you, which has happened with several industrial farms since 1980 when the EPA was first required to document the emissions of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. These reports are one of the few tools rural communities have for holding large livestock operations accountable for the pollution they produce.

Thus, it’s not a big surprise that the livestock industry has lobbied for years for the rule change. To add insult to iniquity, the EPA posted the proposal in the Federal Register while Congress was on its December holiday recess. The change would take effect in October.

Comment period on this issue ends soon, March 28, make sure to let your representatives know you think this stinks. You can also submit a comment directly to the Federal Register.

“These documents paint a picture of an Environmental Protection Agency in crisis. They show the dedicated professional staff of the EPA working hard to do what they are paid to do by the American people - protect our health and our environment. At the same time, we see more and more evidence of Administrator Johnson ignoring the science and the facts, and discarding the advice of his professional staff.”

“I believe this decision will be reversed by the next President or by the courts, but the Administrator can save the taxpayers time and money, and can get us started cleaning up our air if he would simply follow the law, the facts, and the advice of his agency professionals.”

One memo to Johnson said:

“You have to find a way to get this done. If you cannot, you will face a pretty big personal decision about whether you are able to stay in the job under those circumstances. This is a choice only you can make, but I ask you to think about the history and the future of the agency in making it. If you are asked to deny this waiver, I fear the credibility of the agency that we both love will be irreparably damaged.”

You can read more in the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Press Release.

In response to Boxer’s request for a full explanation of why California’s request was denied, the EPA said many of the documents contained “privileged information” that would not be shared with Congress. Christopher Bliley, EPA Associate Administrator wrote,

“EPA is concerned about the chilling effect that would occur if agency employees believed their frank and honest opinions and analysis expressed as part of assessing California’s waiver request were to be disclosed in a broad setting.”

Still no word yet on where we go from here, the lawsuit filed by the State of California is still in the court process, and we may have to wait for a decision.

Unless, of course, Mr. Johnson would recant his decision, if that’s possible and allow California’s request for a waiver.

Or, will Mr. Johnson resign his post?

Meanwhile, twelve other states — Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — had adopted California’s tailpipe standards and the governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah had said they also plan to adopt them. The rules were under consideration elsewhere, too.

Stay tuned, this is another illustration of your tax dollars at work, and maybe this time, for the good.

So far, so good. He says the engines are more powerful and more efficient than their gas counterparts, and they cause much less pollution. Ok, I’m sold, but how much are they?

$1,899. What? Hey, it’s a Toro model that usually sells for $700 with a gasoline engine, and now it burns grease. $1,899, shoot, for that amount of money I can hire the kid down the street to cut my grass with an old-fashioned hand mower and save not only money but even the small amount of pollution created by the “upgraded” mower.

Patten told the Miami Herald, “We’re trying to come up with the iPod of the alternative fuel industry”. His startup company is called HUGR Systems, an acronym for Helping U.S. Grow Responsibly.

So far, he’s sold five mowers and has yet to make a profit, but he’s hopeful the idea will catch on. One business consultant suggested he sell the Toro riding mowers to commercial users, where it would be competitive with gasoline models.

When he’s not spending his working hours teaching doctors how to use computers in operating rooms, Patten heads for the garage and his lawnmower business.

He ran into some problems from the EPA some time ago, when was told he could no longer import the engines from China. Regulations, according to the EPA, require that if the engine can run on biodiesel, it cannot run on regular diesel fuel.

After making necessary changes, Patten got his company up and running again. He’s just waiting for a big order from Toro, something like 50,000 engines. Now that makes sense, but $1899 for a home lawn mower?

“It is unconscionable that the federal government is keeping California and 19 other states from adopting these standards. They are ignoring the will of millions of people who want their government to take action in the fight against global warming. That’s why, at the very first legal opportunity, we’re suing to reverse the US EPA’s wrong decision. By implementing these standards, California would be eliminating greenhouse gases equivalent to taking 6.5 million cars off the road by the year 2020.”

As I suggested in my “Open Challenge to California and all State Governments” of Dec. 20, 15 other states or state agencies are joining the action, including Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico and New York.

California’s action comes on the heels of the EPA’s denial of a waiver requsted by the state to impose new, tougher restrictions on car emissions. The new law requires a 30 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by 2016.

The refusal by EPA administrator Stephen Johnson last month, drew this comment from Brown,

“The denial letter was shocking in its incoherence and utter failure to provide legal justification for the administrator’s unprecedented action.

“The EPA has done nothing at the national level to curb greenhouse gases and now it has wrongfully and illegally blocked California’s landmark tailpipe emissions standards, despite the fact that sixteen states have moved to adopt them.”

So the stage is set for a showdown between states executing their rights, and another government agency seemingly caught up in its arrogance and power. Stay tuned.

Source 

The announcement came in an email released by Public Employees forEnvironmental Responsibility (PEER), saying Johnson has bowed to a Congressional request for the information, following the controversy sparked by his controversial decision.

PEER’s Executive Director Jeff Ruch is quoted as saying: “What made Johnson’s decision so striking is that for months he said he was basing it on the scientific and legal merits and then did the precise opposite. One employee told me ‘I am ashamed to admit that I work at EPA’ and another asked ‘What am I supposed to tell my children when they ask me what I am doing to fight global warming?’”

Johnson has said he will not attend a field hearing of Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA), Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on January 10th in Los Angeles. His appearance before Congress, however, promises to be contentious at best.
Senator Boxer, referring to Johnson’s action, says “you overrode the recommendations of your technical and legal staff in the making of this decision”.

16 other states have adopted legislation establishing the same rules as California, calling for a 30% reduction in tailpipe greenhouse emissions in new cars and trucks by the year 2016, starting with the 2009 model year. The rules are a far cry from reductions called for in the newly enacted energy bill.

Granting California’s waiver would allow other states to move ahead with similar legislation, forcing automakers to bring cleaner vehicles to the market much sooner, not only in those 17 states, but to everyone. I doubt automakers will try to use their flimsy “patchwork” excuse for not upgrading their products sooner.

It will be interesting to see how Congress and the administration handle the situation, and whether the administration will stand by the new energy bill and force states to comply with those regulations.

One of its most recent decisions — its denial of California’s effort to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles — was also one of its most deplorable. But the agency found plenty of other ways to disappoint over the past 12 months:

There’s its latest proposal to exempt livestock operations from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. That’s the regulation that requires facilities to make it public when they release more than 500 pounds of a hazardous substance — like the noxious ammonia and other gases and chemicals that spew from factory farms. Established in the wake of the 1984 Bhopal disaster, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act is being loosened, apparently, in an effort to save on paperwork;

During this past year, the EPA also continued forging ahead with its plan to dismantle its network of technical and research libraries, shuttering libraries in 23 states along with the headquarters in Washington, D.C. Happily, Congress this month ordered the EPA to restore its library services, budgeting $3 million for just that purpose;

Then there’s the EPA’s ongoing failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from large, ocean-going vessels. A coalition of environmental groups this fall petitioned the EPA to either set pollution standards for cargo and cruise ships … or explain why it will not do so. This month, the same coalition sent a similar petition the EPA’s way, this one seeking emissions standards for aircraft;

Did I mention Superfund yet? Earlier this year, the Center for Public Integrity reported that, despite two years of requests from Congress, the EPA still won’t release information about which Superfund sites pose the greatest threats to public health. In addition to the 114 sites Congress has been asking about, there are another 181 sites for which the EPA claims to have “insufficient data” to assess health risks.

Not a great record, by any means, for an agency charged with protecting the environment. Let’s hope we don’t have to wait until a new administration for the EPA to start doing its job again.

The EPA, in refusing the waiver, said the Bush administration was forging a national solution rather than accepting a patchwork of state regulations. At least 12 other states have adopted the California standards with four planning adoption. That, it appears, would qualify as a “patchwork” of standards.

But wait a minute. If the California standards were adopted, car makers could just go ahead and bring their product up to that level and sell the vehicles anywhere they wish. What’s the problem here? Everybody would win with less pollution and more fuel efficient cars and trucks nationwide. Sounds like some smoke and mirrors to me, and if they sell that kind of drivel to the public, we need a better system of education. But the feds are going to hold their ground, so I have a plan, and here’s the challenge.Call a meeting of all state governments, have them sit down and discuss the issue, agree on a set of standards, then go home and make them law. It won’t happen overnight, but think about it.

California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington have already adopted the California emissions standards. Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah said they plan to adopt them, and I suspect the population figures in those states alone would be enough to get the auto makers off their butts and start serving their customers wants and needs.

If the states band together, then there is no patchwork legislation for automakers to contend with, it’s a mandate putting the automakers feet to the fire. They can manufacture and sell the vehicles that don’t meet the state’s standards in states that haven’t passed legislation, but I doubt they’d do that. All fifty states would win, even those who don’t pass legislation. They’ll get cars with the new standards too, but I know there’s strength in numbers so the more states who get on the bandwagon, the better.

To me, this gets down to some basic states-rights issues, especially following a string of court decisions allowing states and the federal government the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said his state will appeal the decision, have it overturned, and turn control of California’s environmental needs over to the citizens of that state. If you’ve forgotten, have a look at a smoggy day in good old L.A.

So OK, Governor Schwarzenegger, I challenge you to get on the phone, arrange a meeting of all states concerned and force the issue. Ask those states that have already adopted California’s regulations to bring lawsuits, just as you have, to force the government’s hand. You have the population numbers, as do all the states, to bring control back to the people.

It’s all about money, and you now have the opportunity to wield the “big stick”.

Source: MSNBC

She got me thinking. Since recycling has been on my radar lately, I have been more aware of my habits and the habits of the people around me. I noticed that I am much more diligent in getting my plastic and glass bottles in the correct place for recycling than I am with all my paper products. It wasn’t until I attended the lecture that I realized how much less of a guessing game paper recycling is, just how important it really is — more important than the resin code mystery in my last post — and how much I neglect the privilege. According to Samantha Macbride, if you want to make a difference, recycle more paper. She explained to us that paper is the most under recycled material. According to the EPA, 35% of total U.S. municipal solid waste generated in 2006 was paper and paperboard (graph source: EPA report).

Yeah, crazy huh? Of the 86 million tons only about 50% is actually recovered (source: epa.gov). This might seem like a valiant job we’re doing when you compare that 50% recovery rate to, say, a 7% recovery rate with plastics, but the problem lies in the sheer number of paper that is produced and the fact that most paper products you come in contact with will be recycled — unlike plastics with resin codes between 3-7.So what’s the problem? Well, that question could take a long time to answer. What I do know is that if there is anywhere to grow or get better, it’s with paper. We are just not doing what we should be. I know for a fact that in NYC most paper products I come in contact with can be recycled, yet until recently I was the joker who might throw a magazine, newspaper or my junk mail in the trash. Learn from my mistakes! Recycle more paper and keep it out of the paper ridden landfills.Paper Paper Paper Paper! Keep it in mind:

• Paper makes up the largest part of municipal solid waste in the U.S., but paper is easy to recycle in most places (just check with your local municipality, that’s the first step). If you want to see the many paper products that can be recycled in NYC click here.
• No, you’re not saving the rainforest by recycling your paper, but you are reducing the need for more landfills.
• Do your part this holiday season and try to use less wrapping. Try using bags that can be reused every year or wrapping your presents with old newspapers that can be recycled when presents are opened. Or, here is a novel idea: just buy less stuff this year.
• Lastly, attend lectures or informative events in your area and find out how your behavior fits with the rest of the community’s and if there is something you can do. It only takes only one viewing of the annual hot dog eating contest on Coney Island or a walk through Grand Central Station on a Monday at 5 p.m. to make one realize that we are many and we consume copious amounts of everything. This is no secret.

It’s time to start changing on an individual level. Until stricter legislation mandates a change, this is how we  must fight our insatiable appetite—one newspaper at a time. I encourage you to look at how much paper you use and consider how much of that you could be recycled.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has raised numerous objections to the permit, which was blocked on October 1. One concern is that the permit may not sufficiently limit chromium, cadmium, silver, cyanide and other chemicals to meet water quality standards for Indiana.

This is the second uproar in recent months about pollutants in Lake Michigan after BP was issued a permit for its $3 billion expansion of the Whitting, IN refinery. This expansion would allow the refinery to handle large quantities of Alberta Tar Sands crude, and comes with a high environmental price tag for Lake Michigan, such as a 54% increase in ammonia and 35% increase in sludge particles being released. This permit was the first to be issued in years that would increase the amount of pollution that a company is allowed to emit into Lake Michigan by finding a loophole in the Clean Water Act.

Recent energy policies, combined with pre-existing crop subsidies, tax policies, global market conditions and trade barriers all provide economic incentives for conversion of retired and other cropland to corn production for use in ethanol production. Such conversions could lead to corn production on an additional 16 million acres...

The Dead Zone, an area in which there isn't enough dissolved oxygen to support aquatic life, has been measured in the Gulf of Mexico since 1985. It's caused by agricultural runoff overenriching the waters at the end of the Mississippi River - the downstream effect of millions of acres of intensely fertilized crops. Nitrogen and phosphorous, intended for corn but ending up in the river, make their way to the Gulf causing excessive phytoplankton production. In the process, all available oxygen is used up (hypoxia), and marine life has to move out or suffocate.

It turns out that the greater Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin (MARB) drains a grand total of 40% of the contiguous United States. The cumulative effect of all this runnoff creates a Dead Zone approximatly 20,500 sq. km. - roughly the size of the state of New Jersey.

To address this issue, the Science Advisory board recommends a 45% reduction in nitrogen and phosphorous fluxes from farmland. Unfortunately, recent trends pushing corn-based biofuels are not exactly aligned with this strategy:

Now you may be shocked by this question. I was. I mean, if you can’t see the fun in trying to save the world from global warming and mass species extinction you, er… and then I started to see her point.

You may notice that not a lot of people consider environmental issues a laughing matter. Crack a joke too close to hot environmental issues and you’ll receive stern glances from all corners of the room, as Jon Stewart can attest. In an interview with Bill Moyers, he laments hearing back from viewers, "your show is so funny, until you made a joke about global warming, which is a serious issue, and I can't believe you did that!"

Well, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently made an exception to this law for the $3.8 billion expansion of British Petroleum’s (BP’s) Whiting, Indiana plant. In exchange, the expansion is said to provide 80 more permanent jobs and 2,000 temporary construction jobs. The trade-off for this socio-economical exchange is 35% more sludge (a total of 4,925 pounds), and 54% more ammonia (a total of 1,584 pounds) pumped into Lake Michigan daily. Even though this increase in pollution is still below the federal and state limits, it is the first decision in years that allows a company to dump more toxic waste into Lake Michigan.
For a company that considers themselves "Beyond Petroleum" by supporting alternative energy development and environmental protection, they certainly are not displaying much attention beyond their own petroleum processing?

This Whiting, Indiana plant (currently the nation’s 4th largest refinery) was originally built in 1889 by John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Co. We are happy that they are using the same facility, but due to the extra crude oil coming from Canada, BP can’t process the expanded volume in the same "small" plant. Therefore, the expansion became the obvious solution. The state excused this severe hike in pollution by saying the project will provide more jobs and security of oil suppliers to the Midwestern United States.

In the past week alone, we've seen the U.N. point its finger squarely at the developed nations responsible for most of the carbon dioxide in the air, and have heard Asian leaders lash out against their region's growing reputation as pollution poster child.

Not to excuse countries like China, because it is a fast-rising contributor to global pollution and greenhouse gases, but why is that? Because we consumers in the West have an insatiable appetite for the cheap goods it pumps out. If we weren't buying all that stuff, China wouldn't be making it.

The Sudan situation and global warming's role in worsening it is stickier, so I'll leave that for now. But how's this for a solution to the Chinese goods/pollution problem: a carbon import tax imposed by the nations buying what polluted, developing countries make? The more the exporters pollute, the steeper the tax. That way, we provide developing nations with an incentive to cut emissions, and we gain a revenue stream that can be directed toward carbon mitigation or alternative energy projects.