The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial Channel 4 film, broke Ofcom rules, the media regulator says…

The film’s key contentions were that the increase in atmospheric temperatures observed since the 1970s was not primarily caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, and that the modern focus on climate change is based in politics rather than science.

It is seen in some “climate skeptic” circles as a counter to Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth, and credited with influencing public perception of climate science.

However “Ofcom” ultimately let the broadcaster off the hook by ruling the documentary did not cause serious “harm or offense,” even though Channel 4 conceded it falsified graphs and data for the film. Curiously, Ofcom also ruled that the link between global warming and human activity had been settled before March 2007 (when the documentary aired) and therefore global warming was no longer “controversial” at the time of broadcast — basically saying Channel 4 gets away with airing the Great Global Warming Swindle because everybody would have known by that time it was crap!

(IPCC chair Sir John Houghton expressed outrage at this notion, saying he knew for a fact the film misled people who believed they could trust the information presented in the documentary.)

This ruling reminds me of Al Gore’s comments to NBC last year, in which he compared global warming deniers to people who think the world is flat — implying global warming is no longer a “debate” and therefore deniers should not get “equal time.”

Apparently, Ofcom agrees with Al Gore….. though more importantly, can you imagine a US agency ruling against an American broadcaster for violating impartiality obligations? (Can you imagine American broadcasters even having impartiality obligations?)

Seminal readers, what are you hearing today?

Yesterday McCain surrogate (and economic adviser) Steve Forbes seemed to reiterate Pelosi’s sentiments, suggesting the Senator would dump his cap-and-trade policy if elected to office, while stating of similar market-based environmental policies “those things are not going to get very far:”

You’ll notice Forbes also praises McCain for reversing his position on offshore drilling and embracing nuclear energy, which Forbes outrageously calls “moving in the right direction.”

McCain of course was the first Senator to introduce a mandatory cap-and-trade bill in Congress back in 2002, a move that has let him get away with (falsely) claiming leadership on environmental issues. Yet besides his many position reversals against the environment in recent years, such as those on drilling and nuclear power, on cap-and-trade itself McCain is now dramatically toning down his rhetoric. Last month he denied that his cap-and-trade plan included any “mandatory” targets (even though it does, albeit weak ones) and asked journalists to please stop confusing the term “cap-and-trade” with “mandatory targets” (even though the latter defines the former).

As the Wonk Room notes:

On July 9, conservative journalist Larry Kudlow reported that he was told “on deep background” by a “senior McCain official” that McCain was off cap-and-trade…Forbes is signaling that Kudlow may be right, and McCain will follow in the footsteps of George W. Bush. As a candidate in 2000, Bush pledged to impose mandatory reductions of carbon dioxide, but reversed that position once he took the oath of office. In 2001, newly elected Vice President Dick Cheney said of Bush’s pledge, “It was a mistake.”

For the record a (mandatory) cap-and-trade scheme does not constitute a “gigantic tax” (though I personally would be in favor of a gigantic carbon tax…). It is by far the most flexible and industry-friendly policy approach available to us that will actually address global warming. Here’s hoping 2009 brings a climate plan no less stringent than Barack Obama’s proposed, IPCC-compliant, cap-and-trade scheme.

I can’t even imagine how we go forward in many areas if we don’t win this election. There’s so much at stake. Barack Obama’s election is essential in so many ways…

John McCain has said he is interested in the climate change issue. He had said he opposed George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy and changed his mind. He was the author of comprehensive immigration reform and changed his mind. And I don’t know how he will rally the Republicans behind something unless he has tremendous enthusiasm for it, and so far the two things he had enthusiasm for he has walked away from. So, the only answer to this is to elect Barack Obama president of the United States.

Pelosi also said she believes Al Gore’s JFK-esque call to phase out 100% of fossil-fuel based electricity in 10 years is “doable,” and praised his leadership in global warming. Last week in Washington the former Vice President challenged Americans to meet this goal, adding some truly progressive suggestions for how to go about it. From the Guardian:

Gore urged the US to institute a carbon tax that could be offset by reducing the payroll tax on employers.

“We should tax what we burn, not what we earn,” he said.

Underpinning Gore’s remarks, however, was a finely tuned sense of the economic anxiety that dominates American life 13 weeks before the next presidential election. He observed that the environmental, fiscal, and national-security dangers facing the country would be eliminated by a conversion to clean energy.

“We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet,” Gore said to wild applause. “Every bit of that has got to change.”

I suppose it’s too much to hope Obama and Pelosi would go to bat for a carbon tax anytime soon, though Gore’s suggestion is certainly a great one.

Seminal readers, heard any straight talk today?

Friday the bill will have to pass a series of cloture votes which will require 60 Senators voting to continue the process. While the Republicans claim that they want serious debate on the issues at hand, the odds are they will vote against these motions, which would essentially shut down the bill. Now there were no expectations that the bill would have even made it through the legislative process this year to even make it to Bush’s desk so that it could receieve the inevitable Veto — but it was hoped that at least a positive framework could be developed so that the bill could be moved quickly next year with a new Administration.

Instead, Majority Leader Harry Reid has filed the cloture motion to limit both the overall time left for debate and the amendments that can be considered. So the Republicans are explaining thatthey would be happy to debate the issue for the next several weeks, but they want the right to offer their amendments — many of which would weaken the bill drastically. Reid has asked to limit the number of amendments to 5 per side, but McConnell has refused. So while the substance of the bill is certainly important to debate, the bill itself will fizzle this year in a flurry of obscure parliamentary maneuvers. Not that we should be surprised.

Yesterday the Senate opened discussion on S. 3036, the latest rendition of “America’s Climate Security Act”, also known as the Lieberman-Warner bill, (or rather the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill, now that Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has co-sponsored the substitute.) This is the most significant piece of climate legislation to make it this far in the Senate, and though many believe the bill will fail (either in the Senate, or via presidential veto) it represents the closest thing policy-makers have found to “consensus” on how to address global warming.

Here is a run-down of the situation in the Senate (courtesy of Grist) and here is an excellent, detailed account of the provisions of the current bill (courtesy of Environmental Law Prof).

Yesterday’s session ended with Senators invoking cloture, which will allow 30 hours of debate on this bill over the next few days. None of the three main presidential candidates were present for the vote, and so far it looks like none will be present for this week’s debate and the final vote.

John McCain has already he said he won’t show, stating he doesn’t support the bill because it doesn’t give enough support to the nuclear industry. (Note, this is very shady. A central aspect of McCain’s campaign is that he will introduce a mandatory cap-and-trade scheme, and back when he was cool in 2003 he led the charge against climate change in the Senate. The current bill provides plenty of support for the nuclear industry, but for some highly suspect reason McCain thinks its not enough. As I’ve noted before, McCain has made quite the departure from sound environmental policy in throwing his weight so loyally behind nuclear.)

Representatives for Senators Clinton and Obama have said that these candidates likely won’t show either, which is ridiculous considering that the primary will be over after today and both claim to be staunch supporters of a rigorous cap-and-trade scheme. I get that Obama will busy this week whooping the competition, but I’d feel better if he’d weigh in, if not fly in, for this particular issue.

It is worth noting that environmentalists are viciously divided over this bill. Most agree the bill falls significantly short of what the IPCC says is the bare minimum necessary to reduce the threat of climate change, though environmental organizations are divided between the “it’s a start” and the “it’s a dangerous cop-out” camps. Friends of Earth has led the latter with its “Fix it or Ditch It” campaign, while the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, Al Gore, and many environmental leaders in the Senate (namely Boxer and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)) have given the bill their support, though all acknowledge its shortcomings.

Pro-environment opponents of the bill legitimately worry it won’t do anywhere near enough to seriously combat climate change and gives way too many handouts to the fossil fuel industry. They have argued a better bill could be passed after the election; one that more closely resembles the bill Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) just introduced in the House.

The fate of the bill depends largely on Boxer and her political will. The somewhat-reassuring news is that she says she’ll pull the bill if it gets any further weakened (or gives any more support to nuclear), offering hope that if it passes it will be in its semi-acceptable state.

The Seminal is keeping an eye on the Senate this week…

The report attributed rising food prices to increasing global demand, drought, high energy prices and other factors, largely clearing biofuels of culpability in the process. In light of the evidence directly linking ethanol production in the US to rising food prices in Mexico, and the UN’s call for international guidelines on biofuel production, it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that politics motivated the US government’s contrary findings.

US Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer’s comments accompanying the report, which adeptly side-step the issue of rising food prices by touting reduced oil consumption, seem to confirm that suspicion:

“Developing diversity in our portfolio of fuels is if anything an even more urgent matter than it has been in the past. And it is one that remains central to our energy security and our national security. The policy choices we have made on biofuels will deliver long-term benefits.”

Schafer pointed to International Energy Agency data that show global biofuels production has cut consumption of crude oil by 1 million barrels a day, offering savings of $120 million dollars a day.

The National Biodiesel Board praised the Secretary for speaking out on the recent attacks on biofuels. “There has been a feeding frenzy on biofuels as the reason for higher food prices, and those accusations are unfounded,” said Joe Jobe, CEO of the NBB. “It is encouraging to see USDA documenting some of the real reasons for increased food prices. The American public is being duped on this issue.”

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva offered his two cents on the “feeding frenzy” at an EU-Latin American summit a few weeks back:

“Obviously, the oil industry is behind it.”

Forgive me — reassurances from the president of an ethanol-producing nation and the CEO of the National Biodiesel Board don’t set me at ease. Neither does the fact that the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture seems more concerned with a reduction in oil consumption than the rise in food prices.

The UN seems to accept the link between increased biofuel production and rising food prices as fact. Common sense agrees. But once again the US government is determined to let special interests dictate its logic. Until the evidence becomes too convincing to ignore (a la global warming), watch out for the spin. Honesty is of little currency in the debate surrounding the production of biofuel, particularly our corn-based variety here in the US.

See here for the video:

Dramatic evidence of the break-up of the Arctic ice-cap has emerged from research during an expedition by the Canadian military.

Scientists travelling with the troops found major new fractures during an assessment of the state of giant ice shelves in Canada’s far north. The team found a network of cracks that stretched for more than 10 miles (16km) on Ward Hunt, the area’s largest shelf. The fate of the vast ice blocks is seen as a key indicator of climate change.

Aside from that, an important component of both Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s strategies for addressing raising fuel prices is to impose a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies, which would supposedly generate revenue for developing renewable, alternative fuels. (Note: Obama accuses Clinton of double-booking this money to pay for the gas tax relief as well, but we’ll ignore that for now.)

But while the sentiment of investing in alternative energies is certainly the right one, introducing a windfall profits tax is bad policy, predicated on the false notion that oil companies’ profits have anything to do with a windfall.

Strictly speaking, we want businesses to be as profitable as possible. We should encourage our citizens to collaborate and enterprise and take risk, and thus to create goods and services and jobs (and thus wealth) that improve our everyday lives. Profits are the incentives that drive innovation, and punitively taxing firms for innovating too well is counterproductive to this aim. (Think carefully: how would our society be different today if the founders of Ford, General Electric, and Microsoft had all been told at the outset of their enterprising that if they made too much money, it would be taken away from them?)

The problem, then, comes when profits are made at the expense of something else — human or environmental health, for example. When oil companies make billions without internalizing the costs of their share of, say, global warming, they are not creating wealth, but rather redistributing wealth toward themselves. True wealth comes when firms enterprise, innovate, and create wealth without doing any harm.

Suffice to say, corporations in America enjoy a unique set of legal privileges and protections that make them the all-mighty forces they are today, but also allow them to do plenty of harm. As has been noted by the Seminal, these privileges include eternal life, limited liability, and a range of Constitutionally-guaranteed protections (e.g. of freedom of expression, of freedom from unreasonable search, of the right to equal protection under the law) that millions of humans around the globe have yet to obtain themselves. Corporations have long enjoyed a legislative climate that protects the interests of business owners and managers before those of employees or even consumers. They have access to the most free-flowing, wide-reaching financial markets the world has ever seen, as well internationally-recognized mechanisms for registering and controlling intellectual property. They operate in a political environment that holds sacred their rights to support candidates and lobby government, despite having resources exponentially greater than any individual or public interest group could ever hope to amass. And though they love to talk about “free” markets, American corporations enjoy a biblical flow of direct and indirect government subsidization, tax and regulatory relief, and preferential procurement practices that ensure that regardless of whether they are particularly efficient or democratic in their operations, they stay in business and drive the American economy.

These are the underlying legal and regulatory — and more broadly the political and cultural — factors that allow corporations to be so extraordinarily profitable in the first place, though targeting “windfalls” completely fails to address them. Introducing stronger principles of accountability, democracy, and liability to the regulations surrounding corporate behavior, and withdrawing government prop-ups, would constitute a real approach to redistributing oil companies’ astronomical profits to the Americans who actually need them.

Like the gas tax holiday, a windfall profits tax is a feel-good gimmick that may win votes, but will at best address a symptom of a much larger, systemic problem. Corporations such as Exxon-Mobil will always benefit from “windfalls,” unless we abandon our culture of protecting profits before humans, and before the Earth itself.

Take a peek at Think Progress for the real story.

Seminal readers, read anything interesting today?

Google has a handy page where you can submit what you’re doing today, take advantage of Google’s resources to make plans, and research ways to contribute to environmental causes.

The government has its own Earth Day site, as does the EPA, if you’re curious to get the official perspective.

Adam Siegel warns us that “Clean Coal” aka “somewhat less dirty coal” is getting ready for the holiday too.

Talking about conservation can get pretty cheesy. It still has all those undertones of sixties-era idealism, not to mention sheer annoyance. But it’s important that we think through even our smallest choices, because a lot of what we do can be done in a greener - and often cheaper - fashion. And a lot of time it doesn’t require any significant extra hassle. For example, I’m making a big effort these days to bring bags with me when I go grocery shopping.

What do you do to conserve energy?