This is a northern snakehead, a fish that is looming on the horizon as a potential environmental nightmare for the state of Arkansas. Max Brantley points to a great article on the threat the fish poses to the state’s ecology and the efforts to combat it.

I’m no ichthyologist or anything, but I know a bit about all kinds of animals. When I was growing up, I was the kid whose parents routinely called him into his room to explain just what the hell was staring back at them from behind the glass of any one of my aquariums or terrariums. I vividly remember going into a pet store at one point years back and seeing a snake head, though I don’t remember what species. The fish was being kept in a piranha display tank. The sale of piranha has long been banned in Arkansas out of the fear that they’ll colonize the rivers and lakes and devour swimmers. Piranha, however, are incredibly misunderstood and vilified scavengers that work to keep dead and dying animals from polluting the water ways of the Amazon. They pose little, if any threat to human beings and a quick cold snap would wipe them out. The northern snake head, however, is a different beast. While the dangerousness of these fish has been greatly exaggerated (they don’t attack people, but can give a nasty bite; they can survive out of water for extended periods of time but their fins aren’t built for walking and they tend to tire out pretty quick) it is still a fish that could do some major ecological damage. The northern snakehead can survive in cold climates; its natural range extends as far north as Siberia. What’s more, it’s a top predator with a voracious appetite that could really do some damage to native fish, and there’s not much that lives here that would prey on them. Arkansas already put a serious eradication effort called Operation Mongoose into play that indiscriminately killed anything with gills anywhere near where a snake head had been found. While I wish there was another way, I think that drastic effort had to be put into effect, though no one is really sure whether it worked or not just yet.

Regardless, Arkansas and the entire country needs to get serious about dealing with invasive species, and we need to do it not while in a state of irrational and unlearned panic, but through a smart, scientific approach that both takes the situation seriously and doesn’t over reach. For example, we’re all familiar by now with the problem of the Burmese python invading Florida. (That’s not the only alien snake invading Florida, and in fact is overrun with invasive species ranging from iquanas to chimpanzees.) Unless we get a handle on climate change now, those big snakes are going to be crawling into Arkansas, and that’s going to mean some serious problems. That said, there is a bill in Congress (not sure on its status off hand) that would ban the sale of several large snake species, a heavy handed move that might lead to the release of more pets into the wild and really won’t address the existing problem. We’ve got to think our way through these things, not act reflexively.

Oh, and as for the snakeheads, if you catch one on your line call Game and Fish ASAP. And if they let you keep it, feel free to clean it and cook it. They aren’t poisonous, contrary to media based myth, and they’re actually pretty good eatin’.

Blake’s Think Tank had an interesting little piece in analyzing “The Clinton Factor“.  One little tidbit caught my eye:

In Arkansas, it’s problematic to be considered a pro-environment candidate. There are too many examples to consider, but the election of 2000, when Mr. Gore was unable to convince rural Arkansawyers that his views on the environment were reasonable, illustrates the complexity with which environmental issues are scrutinized in the Natural State. As in 2000, the outcome isn’t always sensible, but any political candidate running for office statewide recognizes the dynamic and, if sitting on a center-left ideology, attempts to manage it.

Hmm…personally I think Gore had other problems besides the environment here in Arkanasas.  And frankly, I’m having a hard time coming up with any examples in recent memory where being pro-environment in Arkansas was detrimental to a candidacy.  I certainly can’t think of any home grown candidates where an environmentalist outlook was the major contribution to their undoing, but I’m open to enlightenment.  I can, however, think of a counter example, but you’ll have to stick with me for that one.

A good chunk of Blake’s piece is spent discussing the way Clinton talks about how measures to protect the environment can create new jobs.  That’s an important point-a number of green initiatives could create a vast number of jobs for the twenty first century.  However, sticking to the jobs mantra leaves something out, and it creates wiggle room for the political snake oil salesman to both avoid substantially discussing issues they think might get them in trouble with conservatives and avoid taking fire from liberals.  Again, stressing the jobs creation aspect to things like clean energy and green infrastructure improvement and creation is important, but a more substantial approach is needed not just for political gain, but also to save our sorry hides.

The planet is in serious peril.  Global warming is real and its escalating at an alarming rate.  All kinds of hell is being unleashed around the globe, from melting glaciers to heat waves and desertification to freak storms and disease outbreaks.  But there’s more to the crisis we’re facing than climate change.  The Gulf of Mexico is one big deadzone, and it’s not all because of the current crisis.  Pesticide/fertilizer runoff from up the Mississippi has created a huge chunk of ocean there the size of New Jersey that can barely maintain any life at all.  Add to that the fact that we’re in the middle of a mass extinction caused largely by human mismanagement of the environment, the problems of resource depletion such as fresh water, Colony Collapse Disorder, and so many other problems and it quickly becomes apparent that it’s no exaggeration to say that life as we know it depends on an honest talk about our environment in our politics.  It goes beyond talking about how some great initiatives are going to create jobs.  We’re going to have to make it clear why measures to protect the environment are in their interest, or rather the interests of all of us.  That includes things that may be unpopular but which have to be done for all our sakes.  In other words, you have to make the problems of the environment relevant.

I like referring back to David Sirota’s Democrats’ Da Vinci Code every chance I get because it really is the best blueprint out there for populist progressive politics.  Take a look at what Sirota has to say about the environment:

Turn the Hunters and the Exurbs Green

For years, conventional wisdom has said that culturally conservative hunters and exurbanites will always vote Republican. But the GOP’s willingness to side with private landowners and developers is now putting the party at odds with these constituencies. And that could create a whole new class of Democratic-voting conservationists.

In Montana, Schweitzer criticized his opponents for trying to restrict the state’s Stream Access Law, which protects anglers’ rights to fish waterways that cross through private land. He also promised to prevent the state from selling off public land. It was one of the ways he outperformed previous Democrats in rural areas and won his race.

In Colorado, when the Bush administration tried to allow development in wildlife areas, John Salazar pounced. He noted that many of the Bush administration’s plans went “against what nearly every local elected official on both sides of the aisle has asked for.” Salazar’s opponent, who was a former lobbyist and industry-friendly state environmental official, was unable to effectively respond.

Meanwhile, successful Colorado Senate candidate Ken Salazar trumpeted his record of creating land-conservation programs, and his surrogates communicated that message to the state’s culturally conservative hunters. “Ken’s background in resolving water, access and big game habitat, and natural resources issues best qualifies him to be Colorado’s next Senator,” wrote the group Sportsmen for Salazar in an open letter to outdoorsmen. The Democrat had transformed his environmental advocacy from a potential “liberal” albatross into an asset in conservative areas.

Before Schweitzer and the Salazars, there was an Arkansas example.  (See, told you to stick with me.)  I remember seeing an interview with former Senator Dale Bumpers recalling his successful campaign for governor.  In that race, he said, he had talked about the environment, which no one had ever done before in Arkansas really.  He had stressed the need to take care of our rivers, likes, forests, and mountains because, he reminded voters, if we didn’t stop dumping crap in our water or tearing up our wilderness areas we were going to lose them.  And it worked too.  Bumpers got elected and his tenure in the executive office was one of great progressive public policy advancement on a number of fronts.  And that’s the key to victory-making very real environmental problems relevent to the voters.  We are, after all, the natural state.  We like to hunt and fish in Arkansas and there are very few of us who don’t enjoy the great outdoors in some way, shape, or form.  Hell, my whole childhood was spent running around in the woods up on Crowley’s Ridge having one adventure after another, and there are countless other Arkansans who have fond memories doing the same.  You talk about taking care of our environment as something we both value and depend upon, about passing it down to our kids and their kids and then their kids, and most people will listen.  What’s more, it gives you a great way to talk to hunting and fishing enthusiasts too when you talk about making sure their kids and grandkids will be able to enjoy the same hobby by taking care of our resources.

Farmers aren’t unreachable either.  You think they’re not worried about this fracked up weather we’ve been having or about the collapse of honey bee colonies or water shortages?  Their livelihood depends on the environment, and the politician that makes that clear to them and pledges to protect the environment for their sake will get further than the politician that votes against the economic interests of farmers on things like the Murkowski Amendment.  (Yeah, you know who I’m taking a swipe at.)

That’s what it’s going to take for candidates that are progressive on matters of the environment to succeed in this state-honest, frank conversation that makes it clear that protecting the environment is in everyone’s interest, even those that think it isn’t.  And if a candidate uses Sirota’s populist formula, he or she will come out with support from segments that they never thought possible.

This is nice.

The state Pollution Control and Ecology Commission voted this morning to approve an amendment to a state regulation, proposed by Central Arkansas Water, that would prohibit the surface discharge of wastewater in the Lake Maumelle Watershed. It seems simple: keep wastewater out of a drinking supply that supports about 400,000 Arkansans. But CAW and clean water advocates have been trying to get the changes approved by the commission for nearly two years. Commissioners had reservations about setting a state-wide precedent and were trying to balance the interests of landowners, developers and environmentalists.  

It’s a shame that the corporate powers that be managed to drag something that was just plain common sense, not dumping waste into drinking water, out for two years.  More evidence that we need more people powered politics in this state.  Here’s some video, courtesy of the Arkansas Times:

I don’t know Kate Althoff, but I think it might be great to see her run for office someday soon.

Environmentalists are still putting pressure on Blanche Lincoln:

It’s great that there doing this and I hope that Lincoln eventually sees that she’s in the wrong here…but I doubt that will happen. The time for putting pressure on Lincoln is over. It’s time to vote the bum out and we have a viable alternative in the primary. Bill Halter has said he won’t sign on to the Murkowski-Lincoln effort to cut the EPA for big polluters, and he’s spoken well about clean energy and the jobs a good energy bill could create. So instead of standing outside Lincoln’s office saying “Please change your mind.”, go out and knock on doors for Bill Halter and tell Blanche Lincoln to hit the road.

It’s been accepted as a truism that business is naturally opposed to the environment and those of us who care about it. That’s a load of crap. There are plenty of bad apples, to be sure, and we can all list a large number of offenders, but there are businesses that are doing the responsible and right thing by standing up for clean energy. What’s more, they’re uniting under the umbrella of a new organization, American Businesses For Clean Energy.

American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE) is an initiative to demonstrate large and small business support for Congressional enactment of clean energy and climate legislation that will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ABCE’s goal is to create a single place on the web where individual companies and business organizations can register their support for Congressional action, and to demonstrate the depth and breadth of business support for this legislation. That’s why the companies listed on this site range from large companies to small, local to multi-national, and from all sectors of the economy.

***

ABCE has a purpose distinct from business coalitions. ABCE is the ‘big umbrella’ under which any business that supports clean energy and climate legislation should be listed, and it is easy to be listed on the site: all a business has to do is enter some basic information to be listed. There are no dues, no meetings, and no further obligations for firms that only want to be listed. ABCE does not develop or evaluate specific policy proposals, nor will ABCE lobby Congress; these roles are already well-served by the existing coalitions. ABCE supports other business networks by making it easy for businesses to list and link to any business network they participate in from the ABCE site.

What’s more, companies that want to do more can be directed to other organizations or network with other businesses through the umbrella site.

The people running these companies are getting involved for two big reasons.

First, they see that clean energy offers a boom for our country’s economy in the future. Secondly, they realize that environmental degradation isn’t good for business. It’s hard to make a profit when roads are flooded, crops are wiped out by drought, freak storms destroy massive amounts of infrastructure, and massive snowfalls shut down power and transportation.

And with this kind of backing from the business community, every “pro-business” politician needs to be asked how they can stand in the way of clean energy legislation.

Senator Lincoln needs to hear that Arkansans like clean air and aren’t fans of climate change.  What better way to tell her than with a bunch of billboards all over the state of Arkansas?

Personally, I like all the billboards to pick from, but the one saying “Corporate polluters, I support you!-Blanche Lincoln” got my vote. Still, pick the one you like and vote, then tell your friends and family to do the same.  Send Blanche a message that Arkansans don’t take kindly to Senators that work to ruin the Natural State.

Here are the billboards you can pick from:

So what are you waiting for!  Vote already!