Daily Score Blog

Americans have a history of joining together in times of crisis. At our most trying moments, the terminology of war has been the rallying cry. So, it’s understandable that when he’s talking about global warming, John Edwards often implores Americans to be patriotic about something other than war. And when Al Gore accepted his Nobel Prize this week he said, “We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war.”

So, where is America the strong, free, brave, visionary? Where is America, defender of the world’s climate?

The United States is not leading the charge at this week's U.N. climate conference in Bali. American delegates have insisted they would not be a “roadblock” to a new international agreement aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. Not to be a roadblock? Was it irony or simply poor word choice?

Instead, the current US Administration is refusing to endorse international mandatory emissions cuts, refusing to ratify Kyoto, using economic fear tactics, and refusing to budge until China and India lead the way?! (Some reasons why the China argument doesn’t pan out, here, here, and here – and here are some compelling reasons why climate solutions can be a boon to the economy rather than a strain.)

As international leaders chart the roadmap for climate solutions, choosing to boldly not block their way is to take the most passive (aggressive?) course. It’s weak tea; a far cry from America as “beacon of light” in the world. In fact, when it comes to the big solutions for climate disruption – the United States doing the bare minimum may equate to one of the biggest roadblocks there is to solid international action. Because we're big polluters, yes. But more importantly, because US leadership could set the stage for action in a big way.

About a year ago, biologists officially ID'ed a wolf hanging around in Oregon's Wallowa Mountains. It was a pioneer of sorts, striking out west in search of open territory away from the denser populations of the east. (In this case, the wolf probably traveled from central Idaho.)

Today comes news that Oregon may now have its first family of wild wolves since they were killed off in the early 20th century:

For the first time, state fish and wildlife trackers have physical evidence that two wolves have paired up after moving into northeastern Oregon from Idaho.

Tracks found by a rancher in snow near the southern edge of the Eagle Cap Wilderness about 20 miles north of Baker City appear to be from two wolves walking side-by-side. One set of tracks was larger than the other, which could mean one is male and one female.

Reintroduced in the West in the 1990s, wolves have surely been one of the brightest spots in endangered species recovery. When left alone in rugged wild country -- the sort of terrain that the Northwest has in adundance -- they flourish and expand with remarkable vigor. Now, Oregon's lucky enough to welcome wolves back after a 70 year absence.

This one sentence from a US Congressional Budget Office report on the economics of a carbon cap says an awful lot:

[O]ne study suggested that if emissions were reduced by 23 percent and all of the allowances were distributed for free to producers in the oil, natural gas, and coal sectors, stock values would double for oil and gas producers and increase more than sevenfold for coal producers, compared with projected values in the absence of a cap.

Yee-haw!! It looks to me as if grandfathering to coal companies would be fantastic!!!  That is, if you're a shareholder.  For everyone else, not so much.

The economics behind all this are a little hard to explain -- I've tried, but without much success.  But suffice it to say, the author of this paper -- Stanford economics professor Lawrence Goulder -- is a super-reputable dude.  So if you're not inclined to take my word that grandfathering = massive windfall profits, you should at least listen to him.  (And if you're curious, the original paper is here.)