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’.

This is why we have bloggers:

I cornered Senator Mark Pryor immediately after and asked him what he was going to do as our representative to see that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico never happened again. I would not let him go even though he looked a might uncomfortable with my questions. I figured it was cheaper than flying to Washington to see him so I might as well take advantage of the situation.

I explained that I had many years experience from the early ’80s through the 90’s with the oil industry working in exploration, worldwide and domestically. I told him that I went to many OTC (Offshore Technology Conference) meetings in Houston. The industry was seriously working to protect the environment and to prove that they could drill in deep water safely. Since then, the impetus for that research had dried up (as BP stated that the technology they were using was at least 20 years old).

I asked him to please instigate and put forth the legislation that would return those safeguards to the industry and even toughen them up in light of the BP fiasco. He said the first thing was to get the oil flow controlled at the well. I countered with that was a given, we needed legislation NOW to keep it from happening again. He said he would do that. I guess being put on the spot and having witnesses to his response was the cause of his look of discomfiture.

Emphasis mine. Mark Pryor made a promise to his constituents here and it was recorded for all of us to see. His job now is to keep that promise.

It’s no secret that Pryor needs to seriously shape up his representation of Arkansas. It’s bad when Blanche Lincoln has the reputation as our “good” Senator. This is a way Pryor can deliver, by cracking down on BP. If he fails, he may well find himself in the position Lincoln found herself in this year or worse.

So next week, let’s call Senator Pryor’s office and demand that he keep this promise. Remind him that he made it in front of witnesses at the Clinton Library. Remind him that with the internet around and with bloggers now ascendant in Arkansas he won’t be allowed to forget that promise. And we’re going to keep that action going all through next week.

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.

The Murkowski Resolution that would have banned the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases failed to pass the Senate today with at 47 to 53 vote against the measure. Two days after winning the Democratic nomination, Blanche Lincoln sided with the Republicans and voted to pass the resolution. Bill Halter came out against the measure during the primary.

Update:
Senator Mark Pryor also voted for the resolution despite many calls to his office asking for him to vote against the resolution.

This story from TPM really bugs me.

In the latest blow to the prospects of climate and energy legislation, the third ranking Democrat in the Senate suggested today that Dems will start small, instead of bringing a comprehensive bill to the floor.

Appearing on MSNBC this morning, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) confirmed that Majority Leader Harry Reid will move an energy-only bill next month, based on a template authored by Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, and predicted that Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) will have a chance to offer their much farther-reaching climate change legislation as an amendment to the base package.

“Kerry has a proposal that has pretty broad support,” Schumer said. “He’s going, in my opinion, going to get a chance to offer it in the form of an amendment.”

That procedural avenue would make the chances of rounding up 60 votes for capping and pricing carbon more difficult, but is of a piece with the noises coming out of Reid’s own office. Keying off the oil spill in a letter delivered last week, Reid asked several committee chairmen to offer up ideas in time for him to put together an energy bill in July–this despite the fact that the Kerry-Lieberman bill is already drafted, and has been at the center of the energy debate in the Senate for months.

They never seem to learn. You don’t aim low, that’s a recipe for disaster. The opponents of this bill will work to water it down or kill it no matter what is offered, so the best chance for negotiations to produce a successful bill is to be as ambitious as possible. That way, while the negotiating process may whittle it down a bit and remove some good things from it, we’d still have a bill that could address the problems we face.

Energy and the environment are too important for Democrats to aim low on this one. The future of all mankind really is at stake here.

Update: And Shumer walks it back for the time being.  That didn’t take long.

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.

Remember Rick Crawford’s Drill Baby Drill statement on his website?

I support the immediate repeal of all limitations on oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf.  Each area should be surveyed for domestic resources, environmental protections should only be reimposed where warranted, and the revenues from lease sales and production should be used to pay down the national debt.

Well, I was reviewing the Family Council videos (you know, like the one Tim Wooldridge doesn’t want you to see?) , and found video evidence of Big Oil Rick’s support for offshore drilling:

Now granted, he said this stuff well before BP’s oil volcano started gushing in the Gulf of Mexico, whiping out the fishing industry and turning the Gulf into an even bigger dead zone than pesticide/fertilizer runoff had. Still, it’s a testament to Mr. Crawford’s judgement I think. Don’t you agree Mr. Dolphin?

Dead dolphis are washing up on the Gulf Coast, one of just 400 species threatened by BP’s massive oil disaster.  And now we have new pictures and video of the disaster that BP tried to keep under wraps.  Now, check out the explosion itself:

I’m not showing you that because it’s supposed to be a cool pic…I’m showing you that because I want to to imagine trying to survive it if you had been on the rig.  Now imagine that you do survive, get rescued, and then your employers demand you sign a statement saying you weren’t injured and didn’t see anything wrong that could have lead to the accident.  It’s not just the workers either.  BP is trying to get Alabama fisherman to give up their right to sue as well.  Mind you, this is from the company that made enough money in four days to cover the cost of the spill.  Nothing but pure greed and reckless disregard for their workers, the environment, the economy, and the lives and livelihoods of others.  If that’s not evil than pray tell what is it?

Oh and by the way, Republicans (and I’d bet a few Democrats) are still hanging out with these guys and raising funds from big oil like nothing happened.

More of Blanche Lincoln’s corporate ties are bubbling to the surface, much like the oil turning the Gulf of Mexico into a massive deadzone right now.  The League of Conservation Voters is calling for Lincoln to return the money she’s gotten over the years from BP, the company responsible for the spill.  Shades of Goldman Sachs here.  Lincoln already had to duck out of receiving an award at an event sponsored by the big oil company, now the question is will she dump her contributors for political gain again like she did with Goldman?  Lord knows she won’t do so out of principle.

Oh and don’t forget, Lincoln was a big cheerleader for offshore drilling.  Are you seeing a pattern here?  Great opportunity for Halter to talk up jobs and green energy here.

Question.

If you were running for office and one of your policy positions was revealed to be a massive disaster by an ongoing environmental and economic catastrophe, wouldn’t you stop advocating that particular position?  If the answer is no, you might be an Arkansas Republican.  Great example-check out how many Arkansas Republicans running for federal office are calling for more offshore drilling on their issues pages while the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico rages:

Gilbert Baker-

Senator Baker believes energy independence is not just an economic and environmental issue; it’s a national security issue.  The more we rely on other countries for our energy needs, the less secure we are as a country.  The key to reducing our dependence on foreign oil is to “Drill, baby, drill!”

Aside from Lil’ Palin, there’s also Crazy Coleman:

Bureaucratic restrictions on drilling for both off shore and inland, including ANWR, must be lifted and/or revised to allow the U.S. to move to energy security first, then energy independence.

Mike Moore in AR-03:

I believe in the idea that we should “Drill Here – Drill Now – Pay Less!”  We need to encourage production in states that have resources, like Alaska, North Dakota, and Montana (the Bakken Formation).  Energy exploration in these states will produce vast sums of American energy.  We need to increase off-shore energy exploration and production. 

Beneficiary of Bush Administration corruption, Tim Griffin, in AR-02:

Rep. Snyder voted against offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR, building new oil refineries and voted for the cap and trade energy tax. I oppose cap and trade legislation and believe we should encourage resource development and drilling wherever possible.

And, apparently the most vocal supporter of turning the Gulf of Mexico into one big deadzone, AR-01 candidate Rick Crawford:

I support the immediate repeal of all limitations on oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf.  Each area should be surveyed for domestic resources, environmental protections should only be reimposed where warranted, and the revenues from lease sales and production should be used to pay down the national debt.

See that?  He underlined it.  That means it’s important.

This is why.

The oil is escaping from two leaks in a drilling pipe about 5,000 feet below the surface. The leaks threaten hundreds of miles of coastline in four states, with waters that are home to dolphins, sea birds, and prime fishing and tourism areas.

If crews cannot stop the leak quickly, they might need to drill another well to redirect the oil, a laborious process that could take weeks while oil washes up along a broad stretch of shore, from the white-sand beaches of Florida’s Panhandle to the swamps of Louisiana. The oil spill already stretches across more than 1,800 square miles of water in the Gulf Of Mexico, according to the Coast Guard.

Coast Guard crews raced to protect the Gulf of Mexico coastline Monday as a remote sub tried to shut off an underwater oil well that’s gushing 42,000 gallons a day from the site of a wrecked drilling platform.

See for yourself:

If you think the pictures are dramatic, imagine what it’s going to look like when the coastguard sets the ocean on fire.

What crews are dealing with is an oil spill from the explosion that continues to grow in the Gulf of Mexico. A controlled attempt to burn off part of the spill started Wednesday evening, the U.S. Coast Guard said.

The burn-off is part of the effort to prevent the spread of oil from an underwater well that was broken open when the drill rig Deepwater Horizon blew up and sank last week. The slick stretched about 100 miles across the north-central Gulf on Wednesday afternoon and had advanced to within 16 miles of the mouth of the Mississippi River, the U.S. Coast Guard said.

All this adds in abundance to the comparitively trivial reasons I gave for being upset about Obama’s proposal to expand offshore drilling to get Republican support for an energy bill that they won’t back no matter what.  And when you consider that this is the cost for something that will not address our energy needs, I’d say we have every reason to contact the White House and tell President Obama to drop his proposal for more offshore drilling, no matter what the Republicans think.

This, from a Blanche Lincoln event in Brinkley:

“I can’t wait to be on a program with him,” Berry, who endorsed Lincoln at the event, said of Halter. “I never did like him from the very beginning. I can find a thousand people and not one of them likes him.”

That’s right, whether a sitting Congressman likes someone personally or not is more important than the issues or anything else. And it’s important to hold petty, baseless contempt for someone. Can you think of a better example of what’s wrong with the good ol’ boy system?

Oh, and by the way, at that event Lincoln gave us more reason to want to throw her out.

Catering to the anti-environmental farming crowd, Lincoln touted her co-sponsorship of the Murkowski resolution, which would deny the EPA the right to regulate greenhouse gases. She said that it indicated to the EPA that they do not have the right to regulate.

She hinted that farmers could make their own decisions regarding pesticide use as her late father, a farmer, carefully studied pesticide labels. Farmers, she said, can make wise decisions.

She has got to go…and thankfully we won’t have Marion Berry stinking up the delegation much longer.

This is priceless.

You would think they’d learn after the health care debate, but nooooooo.  Here we go out the door on energy and the environment, giving things up to the Republicans and conservative Democrats making what was looking like a mediocre bill into a bad bill.

First, Obama has announced an expansion of offshore drilling. In other words, we’re going to be tearing up the continental shelf, damaging the environment of our oceans (and the parts of our economy that depend on them, like the fishing industry) and keeping us hooked on fossil fuels in the process. Chris Bowers nails this for what it is, fruit being dangled in front of the conservadems and Lindsey Graham. Now, I would be fine with that if, in the course of negotiations, that was offered as a way of getting the bill through. I could deal with that. But right out of the gate like this? This is the same stupid crap that we saw in the health care debate. Did Obama and his administration learn nothing?

Worse yet is the death of cap and trade.

“I think the term ‘cap and trade’ is not in the lexicon anymore,” Salazar said, adding that supporters — including senators working on legislation — will focus more on ideas such as slowing pollution, creating jobs and becoming energy independent. “It’s in that context” the Senate will move forward, he said.

In other words, the big oil companies and the teabaggers and the Republicans that work for both of them managed to scare the administration. Bye bye meaningful climate legislation, hello the future from hell. Thank you President Obama for selling out our planet and our future.

What else can you say when the so called “pollution control board” extends a deadline for coal powered plants to meet clean air standards INDEFINITELY?

The Sierra Club nails this one in a press release:

The October 2013 deadline would have made sure that Arkansas pollution sources subject to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), such as large coal plants, would have substantially lowered their SO2 and North Little Rock, AR – On Friday the Arkansas Pollution Control & Ecology (APC&E) Commission granted the utilities’ request to indefinitely push back the deadline that would have made Arkansas’ air cleaner from pollution sources such as the White Bluff coal fired plant in Redfield, AR. The deadline in the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) for regional haze was meant to improve visibility by reducing emissions of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) by October 15, 2013.

On December 28, 2009, the Southwestern Electric Power Corporation (SWEPCO), Entergy Arkansas and the Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation jointly filed a request to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to push back the 2013 deadline indefinitely. On January 8, 2010, ADEQ recommended that the APC&E Commission approve that request.

Sierra Club Associate Field Organizer Lev Guter stated, “We are disappointed with the APC&E Commission because it failed to defend Arkansas’ commitment to attain cleaner air by October 2013. The residents of Arkansas deserve to have higher standards for air quality and pushing back the 2013 deadline takes the teeth out of Arkansas’ plan for cleaner air. It is unclear how the State is going to make any reasonable progress towards visibility goals if it keeps deferring early compliance measures.”

NOx emissions in order to come into compliance. Pollution sources such as coal fired power plants that spew SO2 and NOx emissions into the air present a hazard to public health and the to the environment. NOx is a precursor to ground level ozone formation. Ozone contributes to respiratory problems, such as aggravating asthma symptoms and especially affects vulnerable populations such as the elderly and children.

So much for being the Natural State, right?