Bring back DDT? Think again.

from the September 13, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0913/p14s01-sten.html

We know it kills birds, fish, and frogs; new research shows it can stunt food crops as well.

By Robert C. Cowen Columnist

Public-health specialists are debating whether or not to bring back DDT to help control mosquitoes. DDT advocates should think again. The environmental damage this pesticide can cause goes beyond the decimation of hawks, eagles, fish, and frogs documented during its previous use. (It was introduced early in World War II; a federal law banned its use in 1972.) Recent research shows that the class of pesticides to which DDT belongs stunts the growth of legumes such as alfalfa and soybeans, limiting their ability to fix nitrogen and so provide their own fertilizer and improve the soil. Also, a comprehensive survey has found that residues of discontinued pesticides such as DDT continue to contaminate streams, lakes, and groundwater throughout the continental United States.

Plants need nitrogen to grow. They can't take it directly out of the air. It has to be combined with hydrogen to form ammonia – a process called nitrogen fixation. Plants ingest the ammonia and recover the nitrogen they need. Nitrogen can be fixed in chemical factories and spread on farm land. Legumes can do the trick naturally. They send out chemical "signals" that recruit nitrogen-fixing soil bacteria. These bacteria form nodules on legume roots and fertilize the soil. Hence the age-old practice of maintaining soil fertility by rotating crops to include plantings of legumes.

For the past several years, Jennifer E. Fox at the University of Oregon in Eugene has used test tube experiments to study the subtle way pesticides impede this nitrogen-fixing process. Last June she joined several colleagues to report research with real plants. Their paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that the pesticides block the bacteria recruitment "signal" that legumes emit. "In essence," Dr. Fox says, "the agrichemicals are cutting the lines of communication between the host plants and symbiotic bacteria."

This has serious implications for farmers. Heavy use of commercial nitrogen fertilizers is showing diminishing returns in terms of crop yields, while fertilizer runoff contaminates streams, lakes, and even coastal ocean areas. If legumes can't do their natural fertilizing job, even more artificial fertilizer will be required.

Some of the pesticides hang around for a long time. The US Geological Survey has made a comprehensive study of pesticide residues in surface and ground water across the continental United States. It used data collected nationwide between 1992 and 2001. A summary of that study, published in Environmental Science & Technology last May, states that the "assessment shows widespread occurrence of pesticides, with concentrations in many streams at levels that may have effects on aquatic life and fish-eating wildlife." Ground water is less contaminated. Nevertheless, one or more pesticides showed up in 33 percent of wells that tap major aquifers used for water supply.

The report notes that most of the DDT class of pesticides that were phased out decades ago "continue to persist in the environment." It adds, "The frequent occurrence of pesticide mixtures, particularly in streams, implies that the combined toxicity of pesticides in aquatic ecosystems may often be greater than that of any single pesticide that is present."

Research like that of Fox and the USGS raises a significant warning: We don't know the full extent of DDT's harmful influence in our environment. We do know that, once it gets into our environment, it stays there. We need to find better ways to control mosquitoes.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Paradise found in Shangri-La

from the September 13, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0913/p18s02-hfes.html

Paradise was easier to hold onto than she thought.

By Ariel SJ Mieling

I never thought I'd find myself in paradise – but then I never thought I would be displeased by it either. When I got off the bus in a little town in the isolated mountains of southwestern China, I discovered myself in what bills itself as the paradise of James Hilton's 1933 novel "Lost Horizons." In 2001 the town adopted the name that rings of mystery and enchantment, Shangri-La. In less than 24 hours, I was ready to leave.

Although the town is in a remote valley, just as Hilton's Shangri-La was, the author didn't describe the stores of touristy knickknacks and the Western-style cafes I found.

Nor was the nearby Gansu Monastery anything like the lamasery of the novel. Even though it is the largest Tibetan monastery outside Tibet, it lacked the religious vibrancy I had become fond of in other parts of Asia. The monks loitered around looking bored or irritated, and the buildings pulsed with tourists.

Farther afield, I was unable to find the lake that, on the map, was as large as the town itself. Nonetheless, there was still a Lake Scenic Area where you could have your picture taken on a horse saddled in the Tibetan style.

Disappointed by all this, I was still persuaded to go to the town's weekly dance with my fiancé and a few others from our guesthouse. I prepared myself not to be impressed and gave little weight to our fellow guest's description of the dance as "a local thing."

Arriving at the square, we found the event in full swing. People danced, spinning in multiple circles along the square's edge. Everyone knew the steps to each song. Although I saw some obvious tourists in Gor-Tex jackets with new digital cameras around their necks, most of the crowd seemed to be local. Old men danced with gusto, embellishing moves they'd practiced for years. There were shopgirls and teenagers and even the occasional toddler, following Mom with awkward steps.

I searched for the source of the music and found a loudspeaker installed in one corner of the square. It seemed public and official enough to have been installed by the government. I wondered if the speaker was for the community's enjoyment or to create another event to attract tourists. But with the music and the movement, I couldn't remain cynical for long.
I joined the circle and followed the steps of those around me – with varying degrees of success. I spun and spun until my body and the dance's complexity urged me to stop. Panting, I decided that I needed to go take a nap. I was beginning to see the charm in this town and getting just a glimmer of why a person might never want to leave.

When I woke up, leaving was still at the top of my agenda, but my fiancé and I still had hours before our bus departed. Squinting in the bright morning light, we surveyed the terrain surrounding the town and began walking through the winding streets toward the closest hill.

Soon, we found ourselves following three old men and their cattle. They weren't herding exactly; each man had only one or two cows. It was more like Shangri-La's version of a group of friends taking their dogs for a morning walk. We followed them all the way into the hills until we spotted a peak we wanted to climb.

We broke off, climbing upward as the men went along the valley floor. Pink and yellow flowers, red leaves, and gray puffballs lined our route up. While furtively catching my breath, I stopped every few feet to examine the unusual plants.

Finally, the terrain flattened out, leaving us with a panoramic view of the town on one side and an endless array of hills on the other. I sat down beneath the prayer flags that marked the peak and bit into an apple bought early that morning. Fresh cold air hit my face and filled my lungs, and a feeling of contentment settled over me. Paradise had crept up on me, and I didn't really want to leave, ever. Nonetheless, staying didn't seem to be the right answer either.

In "Lost Horizons," Hilton's main character, Hugh Conway, finds peace in Shangri-La and then leaves. After climbing down the hill and picking up my bags, I was about to do the same. As the bus weaved along the road out of town, I kept sight of a rainbow framed against a brewing storm. At each turn, I saw the rainbow in a new location, arching in a different direction. I began to understand how Conway and I could both choose to leave paradise. Paradise is not confined to a single place; it moves with us – like a rainbow. Paradise depends more on our perception than on the location itself.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

States are closer to trimming autos' CO2 emissions

from the September 14, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0914/p01s02-usgn.html

The move by 12 states could coax Congress to pass efficiency limits.

By Mark Clayton Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

When historians finally take stock, Vermont may look like the mouse that roared – the tiny state that brought the nation's mighty auto industry to heel by requiring cars that emit fewer greenhouse gases.

This is one scenario that could unfold following a federal judge's ruling Wednesday, which upheld a Vermont law patterned after California's mandate that the carbon-dioxide emissions of cars sold in the state must be slashed 30 percent by 2016.

The judge's finding – that federal fuel-economy laws are not in conflict with state emissions laws – is particularly significant, coming on the heels of a US Supreme Court decision in April. That ruling found that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, legal experts say.

On the one hand, Wednesday's decision strengthens the hand of states that want to take action against global warming. But in the longer term, the impact from the ruling could lead to one nationwide standard, which is already expected by many.

In addition to the 12 states with California-style laws on the books, another six are close to acting.

The ruling this week could start dominoes falling by:

• Prompting the US EPA to grant California a waiver from the Clean Air Act allowing it, along with Vermont and the 10 other states with identical laws, to begin enforcing greenhouse-gas requirements for cars sold within their borders.

• Causing six additional states – Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, Utah, Illinois, and Minnesota – to proceed with their own similar emissions requirements. Altogether, the 18 states that have such laws – or are leaning toward them – make up about half the US auto market.

• Spurring Congress to reconsider the new fuel-efficiency standards it is currently weighing, which are not as demanding as Vermont's, and mandate a tougher federal requirement that would also reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

• Causing federal judges in two similar cases brought by the auto industry – one in California, the other in Rhode Island – to dismiss those cases if they determine the industry has had its day in court and further proceedings would be redundant, according to environmental lawyers.

The efforts by the 12 states with laws in place could cut emissions by 100 million tons annually. By comparison, however, US cars and light trucks emit 1.5 billion tons annually.

Still, this would be "the most significant step so far" on vehicle emissions and pave the way for broader action, says Michelle Robinson, director of the clean vehicle program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington environmental group not party to the lawsuit.

Environmental groups, who joined Vermont as defendants in the current case, have been exultant. "This extremely important ruling makes clear that the US EPA and states acting under the Clean Air Act do have the power to set more stringent emissions limits on cars and can also regulate greenhouse gases," says attorney Matt Pawa, who represented the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Environmental Defense.

Following the three-week trial, it was quite clear that US district judge William Sessions found less than convincing the arguments of auto-industry experts, who testified that the industry lacks the technology to make such vehicles and cannot afford to do so. The companies, he wrote, "have not carried their burden to show that compliance with the regulation is not feasible; nor have they demonstrated that it will limit consumer choice, create economic hardship for the automobile industry, cause significant job loss or undermine safety."

Auto-industry officials sounded a defiant note and promised to use what influence they could to try to block the EPA waiver to California, as well as potentially launch a court appeal.

Concerning EPA's key decision on whether to grant the waiver requested by California, Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said in a statement that "the Alliance remains committed to working with policy makers to make certain that the EPA's judgment is based on credible, sound scientific data as to what policies truly impact California, its citizens and global climate concerns."

Yet some analysts see a familiar pattern being played out in which state mandates could be followed by federal requirements – which happened with the adoption of seat belts, air bags, and higher mileage standards. "We've got a similar dynamic here to what was happening in the 1990s with states leading with strict standards on tailpipe emissions of nitrous oxide and other pollutants – and the EPA and federal government finally following," Ms. Robinson says.

The practical impact of the ruling could be more-efficient vehicles as soon as the 2009 model year, Mr. Pawa predicts – based on the idea that the industry could not afford to wait and see what Congress does. But veteran auto-industry analysts aren't so sure. "You can wish for 100 miles per gallon or 200 m.p.g., but that doesn't mean you can make it happen," says David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich.

Others, however, say the ruling makes such arguments moot. "The court is looking carefully at the industry's argument that this will bankrupt us and drive us to ruin," says Steve Hinchman, an attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation. "The judge found the so-called obstacles to be overstated and that the industry has the financial resources. It's ironic because this is a step that's going to help the US auto industry. They should fire their lawyers and promote their engineers."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Faith's role on the rise in Campaign 08

from the September 12, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0912/p13s02-lire.html

A new Pew poll on religion and politics finds that 70 percent of Americans want a president with strong religious beliefs.

By Jane Lampman Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

For people who've tuned into this year's presidential debates, it's clear the candidates aren't hesitant to talk religion. Apparently, that makes a lot of sense.

Most Americans (almost 70 percent) say they want a president with strong religious beliefs, and they are comfortable with the discussion of faith in the election campaign. In fact, 38 percent say there's "too little" discussion of religion, according to the latest Pew poll on religion and politics, released Sept. 6.

"It's an interesting election cycle in that we have this high level of discussion on faith and values in both political parties ... [and] 38 percent still want more," says John Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in Washington.

The role religion will play in voters' political choices, however, remains far from clear. Paradoxically, the front-runners in both parties – Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton – are currently perceived as the least religious among the candidates.

Hot-button social issues of concern to religious activists are taking a back seat to Iraq and domestic issues, even among Evangelicals. Seventy-eight percent of Americans cite domestic issues (such as the economy, healthcare, and the environment) and 72 percent cite Iraq as very important in their decisions, while 38 percent cite social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

Among Evangelicals, 72 percent highlight domestic issues; 66 percent, Iraq; and 56 percent, social issues.

For Evangelicals – especially the younger generation – the agenda is changing, and in ways that are likely to affect politics, according to the Rev. Jim Wallis, who heads Sojourners, a progressive evangelical ministry. Reverend Wallis, the author of "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It," says he's spending lots of time on Christian college campuses, where he's debating the "moral issues of 2008" with leaders of the religious right.

"Evangelicals still care about the sanctity of human life, but they also care deeply about poverty, climate change, HIV/AIDS, Darfur, the war in Iraq," he says. "Whoever addresses those issues from a moral perspective will be attractive to Evangelicals. Their votes are really in play."

Candidates in both parties are making a pitch on faith and values, but particularly Democrats.
Since 2004, they've been working to erase an image of being inhospitable to religion with an outreach effort by state parties and on the campaign trail. Barack Obama, for instance, who captured national attention a year ago with a speech on religion in politics, is holding "faith forums" in Iowa and New Hampshire.

"This time the top three Democrats happen to be articulate about their faith," Wallis says. "And they're connecting values with policies."

Democrats show more of their faith

The Pew poll suggests they've made modest gains so far. The percentage of Americans who see the Democratic party as friendly to religion has risen by 4 percent over the past year, and the percentage who see nonreligious liberals as having too much power in the party dropped from 44 to 37 percent since 2005.

"These are modest but significant indications that the effort by Democratic leaders to change their image is bearing some fruit," says Dr. Green, an expert on US politics and religion.
"Many independents two years ago saw the Democrats as a party where secularists had too much influence," he adds. "The fact that perception is declining could make it easier for independents to vote for Democratic candidates.

Forty-three percent of Americans say that religious conservatives have too much control over the Republican party.

Interestingly, the survey reveals that even people who are not themselves observant see religious commitment as an asset in a candidate.

Of those surveyed, only 16 percent perceive Senator Clinton as "very religious," compared to 28 percent for John Edwards and 24 percent for Senator Obama. But large majorities see all three as "somewhat religious."

Mitt Romney far outpaced other Republicans, with 46 percent of Americans viewing him as "very religious." He even bested President Bush (43 percent). Yet Mr. Romney faces concerns about Mormonism. One-quarter of Americans say they are reluctant to vote for a Mormon.
Fourteen percent of those surveyed see Mayor Giuliani as "very religious," with Fred Thompson at 16 percent and John McCain at 19 percent. Large majorities see them as "somewhat religious."

The question is whether a GOP candidate can capture the imagination of conservative Evangelicals who have served as a strong base for the party in the past.

"At this point in the campaign season, religious talk is grabbing more attention than how those beliefs will intersect with their individual policy positions," says Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council in Washington. "Even in this poll, it's evident people haven't drilled down to that yet."

He points to the finding that just 22 percent of the public, and less than one-third of Republicans, are aware of front-runner Giuliani's abortion-rights position.

"As we get closer to the election, people will look to see if the religious talk matches with policy positions consistent with people of faith," he adds. "When the dust settles from the Republican primary, if you have someone who doesn't hold their view on abortion, then Christians won't get involved – they'll vote, but they won't be out there working or stirring up others to vote."

Church and state still a strong divide

Although the poll shows an ambiguous impact, Green suggests faith will continue to be a prominent element on the hustings.

"That religion is sometimes important, sometimes less so, helping some candidates and hurting others, is likely to reinforce the desire of the candidates and party leaders to make effective religious appeals," he says. "I think this will be a standard part of the campaign, certainly through the primaries and probably the election."

Despite the thumbs up Americans give to the faith-and-values discussion in Campaign 08, the survey highlights one taboo: Nearly two-thirds of Americans (including a majority of conservative Republicans) are opposed to houses of worship endorsing political candidates.
The nationwide survey of 3,002 adults was carried out in August by the Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Bush recasting the war as not just about Iraq

from the September 05, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0905/p02s01-usfp.html

His recent speeches cite Iran and Al Qaeda as reasons the US must not pull out.

By Howard LaFranchi Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Washington

It was hardly happenstance that President Bush chose to visit Iraq's Anbar Province on Monday – and not Baghdad – to set the stage for crucial congressional deliberations on US Iraq policy.

To start, Anbar – a vast Sunni-dominated territory virtually written off a year ago as lost to extremist insurgents – represents the clearest accomplishment of the administration's strategy of having additional US troops work more closely with local populations.

But Mr. Bush's choice of Anbar also serves as a reminder of the potential consequences of a US pullout: Would Anbar be left open to the return of Al Qaeda-associated insurgents?

In fact, the emphasis on the province buttresses an argument that Bush has stressed recently: that US troops must stay in Iraq not just for the sake of Iraqis, but for US national security. (However, Bush did offer on Monday the possibility of future troop reductions, based on continued progress toward better security.)

Anbar, more so than Baghdad, is associated with the US war on terror and the fight against Al Qaeda. And in talking about Iraq, Bush has repeatedly cited Al Qaeda – and Iraq's troublesome neighbor Iran – as key reasons for staying the course.

"It's become the heart of the defense of why we should stay in Iraq for an indefinite period of time – that the consequences of withdrawal would be victory for one or both of those two" adversaries, says Rand Beers, director of the National Security Network, a Washington think tank consisting of mostly Democratic security and defense-policy specialists.

Bush's recent speeches

In recent speeches, Bush has lauded US military cooperation with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar. Leaving now would reopen the door to Al Qaeda influences and domination, he says.

At the same time, Bush has warned that a US withdrawal from Iraq would open the way to Iranian domination – not just of Iraq, but of much of the Middle East. And that would mean the widened influence of a country that the US lists as a state sponsor of terrorism, as well as the potential for a nuclear arms race in the world's most volatile region, the president adds.

The reasons for this shift in justification for the "surge" strategy are basically two, analysts say. First, the original goal of promoting Iraqi political action and national reconciliation has not been met, even from the White House perspective.

The second reason for the shift has more to do with convincing a war-weary US public and restless Congress that the stakes in this war go well beyond uniting uncompromising Iraqi politicians.

With US soldiers dying as a result of the troop buildup but the US not seeming to get much back from Iraq's political leaders, associating the surge more closely with widely accepted US national interests – that is, defeating Al Qaeda and containing Iran – has a better chance of support. That goes for Congress as well as for the public, analysts say.

"The administration is tailoring its arguments to those most likely to achieve resonance with the American public, and focusing on Al Qaeda and Iran certainly strikes a responsive chord in the country that transcends the Republican base," says James Dobbins, director of international security and defense policy at the RAND Corp. in Arlington, Va.

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) study released Tuesday shows the Iraqi government failing 15 of 18 goals for security and political progress.

In disputing the negativity of the GAO report, the White House is emphasizing gains made at grass-roots levels and playing down the Iraqi government's inertia.

A number of other reports Congress will begin to take up this week conclude that few political goals have been met by Iraqi political leaders since the troop buildup began. Some even cast doubt on the extent to which violence has been reduced.

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Iraq, and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker will offer a comprehensive review of Iraq to Congress Monday. Also, a White House report to be delivered by Sept. 15 is expected to conclude there is only limited political progress, but less violence in areas where the US has boosted its presence and significantly enhanced cooperation with Sunni tribal leaders.

In the run-up to the imminent focus on Iraq, signs are growing that Bush's change in emphasis has borne fruit, both in Congress and with the general public. Some polls show support for the war effort has rebounded, in particular after recent speeches Bush has given on the dire consequences he sees of a quick withdrawal form Iraq. And after what may have been a high-water mark for "change the course" and "set a timetable for withdrawal" advocates in July, the White House appears more confident that Congress will go along with a continuation of the troop buildup into early next year.

Other ways of looking at it

But Mr. Beers – who served on the National Security Council in four administrations including the current one before leaving in 2003 over the Iraq invasion – says that while the concerns with Al Qaeda and Iran are certainly legitimate, it is less justifiable to argue that continuing the "surge" is the only or even the best way of addressing those two challenges.

"The president's argument doesn't say what else we might do or what might be more likely to happen to address these threats. It's as though all we would be doing is withdrawing," Beers says. "But you can also argue that by drawing down in Iraq, we're going to be able to go after Al Qaeda in its headquarters in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

As for Iran, he says, a drawdown of the military buildup could be accompanied by a "diplomatic surge" focusing on all Iraq's neighbors, including Iran.

Mr. Dobbins says the Al Qaeda argument is "unexceptionable" because the goal of reducing the terror network's reach in Iraq is an obtainable objective.

"It probably is feasible to, if not eradicate, then significantly diminish Al Qaeda's hold in the Sunni parts of Iraq, and it's hard to argue with that objective," he says.

The one problem he sees is that "one can also make the argument that the best way to achieve that is by us leaving," since the argument of US "occupation" would have less appeal.

But Dobbins says the reasoning to keep large numbers of US troops in Iraq to contain Iran is more problematic, simply because Iran is a major regional influence and will play a role – positive or negative – in Iraq.

"The Iran argument has considerable appeal in terms of American attitudes," he says, "but it is in fact inconsistent with stabilizing Iraq." Dobbins, who as a Bush envoy to Afghanistan in the early part of the administration worked with Iranians on stabilizing that country, says Iran's considerable influence in Iraq will mean the US will have to make a choice.

"The dilemma for the US will be either we focus on stabilizing Iraq or we try to contain Iran," he says. "But it can't be both."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Thompson to face high expectations

from the September 05, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0905/p01s03-uspo.html

The former senator plans to officially kick off his presidential bid Thursday.

By Linda Feldmann Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Washington

He has played both a real president (Ulysses S. Grant) and a fictional one on TV, and now, at last, former actor/senator/lobbyist Fred Thompson is ready to audition for the real deal, as he unveils his presidential campaign via webcast on Thursday.

The 6-foot, 6-inch Tennesseean enters the race late and with sky-high expectations. National polls of Republican voters typically put Mr. Thompson in second place, behind former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and ahead of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

But polls also show "none of the above" scoring well or even at times in the lead – a sign, say Thompson backers, that GOP voters are unhappy with their choices. That's good news for Thompson, who was drafted to run after another former Tennessee senator, Bill Frist, opted out of the race. Now that Thompson is a full-fledged candidate, his supporters say, voters once hesitant about buying into a quasi-candidate can say he's their man.

In a way, Thompson has been running for months. He's been building his campaign staff, giving speeches, and raising money. But by keeping himself in "testing the waters" mode, not even filing papers to establish a exploratory committee, he has avoided some of the scrutiny that the fully declared candidates have faced.

He has not taken part in any of the Republican debates – and will miss the next one, on Wednesday night, preferring instead to appear on "The Tonight Show" – and has not competed as a coequal with the other GOP candidates in the fundraising race otherwise known as the "money primary."

Still, his long-developing sort-of campaign has kept political reporters busy, given the turmoil and regular turnovers among top campaign staff, mixed reviews for his speeches, and fundraising that had not met his team's stated expectations. Now, Thompson says, he's ready to go. But he has, in effect, skipped spring training and is going right into the regular season. With the entire political world watching intently, there is little margin for error.

"There's really no clear Republican front-runner and he continues to do reasonably well in the polls, so he has a shot," says John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. "But at the end of the day, what really matters is, does he come out with a message that resonates with Republicans?"

During the spring, the Thompson team put out signals that the campaign would launch around July 4. Then he delayed, sparking talk that Thompson really did not have the fire in the belly for a grueling presidential run. After all, he is remarried, has two young children, and by all appearances was enjoying his post-Senate life playing District Attorney Arthur Branch on TV's "Law & Order."

When Thompson does finally make his debut as a candidate, the No. 1 question will be: Are his message and persona compelling enough to change the dynamic of the race? Van Hilleary, a former member of Congress from Tennessee who has been raising money for Thompson, sees a Reaganesque ability to communicate and connect with people that will propel him.

"I think it's unfair in many ways to compare anyone else with Ronald Reagan, because he's an icon," says Mr. Hilleary. "But [Thompson] does have an ability to communicate, and in that sense, it's similar to Ronald Reagan."

Republicans have long been yearning for the next Reagan – a sunny conservative whose platform was small government, fiscal restraint, and family values – and had found the existing field wanting. While Mr. Giuliani plays well with his 9/11 tough-guy image and Mr. Romney has won over voters (particularly in the early nominating states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Michigan) with his executive and business experience, both have been found lacking on social issues.

Rep. Zach Wamp (R) of Tennessee might be Thompson's biggest cheerleader. In an interview, he describes running into former Tennessee Sen. Howard Baker – one of Thompson's original Washington patrons – right after former Senator Frist announced he would not run for president, and hatching the idea of a draft-Thompson effort.

"I said, 'He's a natural – call it gravitas,'" says Mr. Wamp. Senator Baker suggested that Wamp contact Thompson, and when he did, Thompson was caught off guard, described his happy life, and thanked him for the compliment, says Wamp. But the seed was planted and, within months, Thompson was commanding an audience of enthusiastic members of Congress urging him to jump in.

On Thursday, Thompson will do just that. If the former senator can hit the ground running, with a crisp message and positive press reviews, all the talk about having waited too long will dissipate.

But some facts related to timing are immutable. If Thompson had jumped in soon after he first floated the idea on a Sunday talk show in March, he could have turned the Romney campaign into "political roadkill," writes nonpartisan political observer Stu Rothenberg. Instead, by waiting until September, Thompson allowed Romney to mount a highly organized campaign in the early nominating states with major TV advertising, win the Iowa straw poll, and start the autumn push toward the primaries as a top-tier candidate.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Earlier '08 primary nets few gains for California – so far

from the September 06, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0906/p02s01-uspo.html

A Feb. 5 vote brings candidates to the state, as intended. But fundraising still trumps issues.

By Daniel B. Wood and Ben Arnoldy Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor

Los Angeles and Oakland, Calif.

This week, California will be shining brightly in the 2008 presidential race.

That's because more big-name stars than ever (including Tom Hanks, George Clooney, producer Steven Spielberg, and monied moguls David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg) are expected to attend a celebrity-packed fundraiser for Barack Obama hosted by Oprah Winfrey at her southern California estate this Saturday.

Indeed, ever since the electoral megastate moved its primary up to Feb. 5 to gain more clout in the presidential nomination process, more candidates have been showing up here more often, staying longer, and coming back than any election in the past 30 years, experts say. But in the early going, California is still continuing in its role as ATM for national candidates, most analysts say. The Golden State has yet to become a place where they actually stump, reveal new policy, or cater to California concerns.

"They have been visiting for sure, but only to preach to the faithful, raise money, and leave," says Tony Quinn, coeditor of California Target Book, a nonpartisan analysis of congressional and state legislative races.

Californians are also donating far more money to presidential candidates this election cycle than the last. At this point in the 2004 presidential election, the top four candidates had raised some $10 million in the state, compared with $26 million now. Part of that, however, may be because of the accelerated primary schedule and no incumbent. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) of New York is the early front-runner of all the candidates, with $8.7 million raised from California. Senator Obama (D) of Illinois is second with $8.2 million.

Now that is likely to be changing. Because Ms. Winfrey, the billionaire TV diva, has thrown her support behind Obama, all eyes are glued to what kind of influence her fete could have in the coming months.

"This Oprah fundraiser could be one of the more influential in a long time because she is one of the biggest endorsements that Obama has been able to secure, and she is very influential with women and blacks – two of his key constituents," says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. "Her opinion matters a lot more than fellow politicians right now." But he and other analysts are a bit dubious of both the money and influence of Hollywood. "When Feb. 5 finally arrives, few people are going to vote for any of the presidential candidates just because Oprah endorsed one of them," says Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a nonprofit organization in Los Angeles.

Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Minnesota, likes to remind voters that Democratic contributors at California events "tend to be an exotic crowd to many other Americans, which hooks into the broader observation that the money people in both parties are not that representative of most Americans."

North of Tinseltown, Obama has been more competitive with Clinton than in Hollywood among the cellphone-holster set up in Silicon Valley. This year, Google's headquarters is proving to be the tech sector's Oprah mansion. Clinton, John McCain, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Ron Paul have all addressed town-hall-style meetings involving thousands of Google's employees.
"Google has become the new place, a watering hole of sorts," says Russell Hancock, president of Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network, a nonprofit research group. Such gatherings give candidates access to individuals who not only are wealthy but are highly connected in the industry.

Candidates who drop in at the Googleplex also get their ears bent by the tech giant's increasingly robust lobbying arm. The company cares particularly about the US's economic competitiveness expansion of H1-B visas, which seek temporary help from skilled workers, and math and science education, says Adam Kovacevich, Google's Washington spokesman.

Similar issues are top of mind across Silicon Valley, creating disconnects with Washington.
"Every time I go to Washington, [people talk] of Asia as a threat, a security issue. They are still using terms like 'Red China,'" says Mr. Hancock. "Folks in Asia are not inscrutable, far away people here – they are our business partners, our friends, our spouses."

Immigration is a big worry in Silicon Valley – how to expand it, that is.

More than 40 percent of the population in the region is foreign born, and these are "our superstars," says Hancock.

These economic, rather than security, concerns make it heavy sledding for Republicans among the tech community, say analysts. Donations from Silicon Valley ZIP Codes are flowing to Democratic presidential hopefuls nearly 3 to 1 over Republicans. Mitt Romney, among the Republicans, has made the most headway – something observers chalk up to his venture capital background, his interest in Asia, and his talk of governing with a business sensibility.

Clinton and Obama, meanwhile, have garnered the most tech money for different reasons.
Obama projects the qualities of youth, innovation, and optimism that permeate Silicon Valley. Clinton benefits from inroads made by her husband and his vice president, Al Gore, at the dawn of the region'/s political awakening in the mid-'90s. Her voting record, particularly on H1-B visas, also aligns her with Valley interests, says Sara Miles, author of "How to Hack a Party Line: The Democrats and Silicon Valley."

Those interests have grown less idealistic over time, she notes. Back in the late '90s, techies talked of changing public education and campaign-finance rules. "Now they are fighting on how to count stock options and arguing much more narrowly on their issues," says Ms. Miles.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Senate Republicans draw bright line with Craig scandal

from the September 07, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0907/p25s03-uspo.html

The Idaho senator pleaded guilty, while other senators who are under investigation have not been charged with wrongdoing, said GOP leader Mitch McConnell.

By Gail Russell Chaddock Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Washington

While the US Senate is known for its endless deliberations, you wouldn't know it from an unusually swift response to Sen. Larry Craig's legal woes.

Within hours of the announcement that the three-term Idaho Republican had pleaded guilty to a disorderly conduct in a solicitation case last June, Senate Republican leaders called for an ethics probe – and, unusually, announced they were doing so.

Soon after, they also asked Senator Craig to give up his ranking member leadership positions on committee assignments. GOP caucus rules provide for this step only after a felony conviction. And they urged, rather than requested, Craig to resign.

When an attorney for Senator Craig appealed to the committee to conclude that there is no precedent for asserting jurisdiction over such conduct, the committee fired off a response the same day that the investigation would go forward.

"I would highly doubt they had even read [Craig attorney] Stan Brand's argument on behalf of Senator Craig before they wrote that letter," says Craig spokesman Dan Whiting, in a statement to the Monitor.

"We agree that the ethics committee has under the rules broad discretion in the cases it can review, but the argument here is that they should not start reviewing senators based on misdemeanor charges unrelated to their official duties. That would open a huge Pandora's box."

The swift move to closure in the Craig case is a sharp contrast to the tack that Republican leaders have taken with two other GOP senators recently caught up in investigations of wrongdoing.

Sen. David Vitter (R) of Louisiana was applauded by his Republican colleagues when he returned to a caucus meeting after admitting he made phone calls to a prostitute service. Sen. Ted Stevens (R) of Alaska, whose home was recently searched in a federal corruption investigation, appealed to his colleagues to wait until the probe was complete before rushing to judgment – and his colleagues on both sides of the aisle have respected that request.

Attempting to draw a bright line explaining such differences, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told reporters this week that the difference is that Craig pleaded guilty, while Senator Stevens is still under investigation and Senator Vitter has not been charged with a crime.

A leading ethics watchdog group calls that standard disingenuous. "It's a very fine point to say that one person pleaded guilty to a low-level sexual misconduct crime and another didn't get charged, when both have admitted to crimes," says Melanie Sloan, executive director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

"Just because [Vitter's] conduct seemed to be too long ago to get charged, the underlying conduct is the same. We're just talking about the venue in which they admitted it," she adds.

Senator Craig's legal strategy comes down to this: He says that he exercised poor judgment when he pleaded guilty to charges connected with an investigation of sexual activity in a Minnesota airport men's room, and he is trying to withdraw that guilty plea. At the same time, he has asked the Senate ethics committee not to pursue ethics charges against him. Unless he is able to both withdraw the guilty plea and restore his committee assignments in the Senate, he will resign from the Senate on Sept. 30, spokesman Dan Whiting told the Associated Press on Thursday.

"These investigations would burden the Committee and subject members to consistent standards and burdensome proceedings which would not vindicate any legitimate Senate interest. They would also leave members vulnerable for almost any legal transgression no matter how minor or professionally irrelevant," wrote attorneys Stanley Brand and Andrew Herman in a Sept. 5 letter to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics.

Many senators interviewed for this story would not speak on the record about the Craig case beyond saying it was sad, unfortunate, and inexplicable. But the precedent the case potentially sets for Senate ethics investigations is clearly troubling to some senators and ethics watchdog groups.

"I don't begin to understand it," says Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But I hope I never get picked up for a speeding ticket. That's also a misdemeanor."

Some legal experts say that the bright line Senate Republicans are attempting to draw in this case has little legal basis.

"Craig has a legitimate point that, regardless of his guilty plea, the underlying crime is relatively minor. What Vitter admitted to is considered a potential felony," says Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School.

"The Senate is allowed to investigate any conduct that would bring disrepute to that body. But there are credible and detailed allegations of corruption by current members of the Senate that have gone without serious investigation," he adds. "This [Craig] case is certainly a departure from past practice."

But from a political standpoint, the issues at stake for Senate Republicans were clearer. No one wants to head into 2008 elections, as they did in 2006, with corruption cases and sex scandals fresh in public thought. The failure of House GOP leaders to deal quickly with a sex scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley (R) of Florida and congressional pages contributed to the Democratic takeover that year, and Senate Republicans didn't want to make the same mistake.
On Wednesday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched an ad featuring Craig in a gallery of GOP "bad boys."

The combination of the Vitter revelation and the investigation of Stevens hurt Craig, says Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. "Republicans weren't going to discipline either of them because the legal process hadn't unfolded, but here was a case where there had been apparent legal closure. It's the example that makes the point that Republicans are willing to sanction people in their caucus who do illegal things."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Is Iraq making political strides?

from the September 10, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0910/p01s01-usfp.html

General Petraeus will cite progress to Congress this week - but it's mostly military.

By Howard LaFranchi Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON

When Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker give their progress report on Iraq to Congress Monday, much will be said about US military gains since President Bush announced the "surge" of 30,000 additional troops in January.

But the main question for US policymakers in judging the surge strategy remains a political one: Did Iraqis use the period of intensified American action to make political gains, especially to further the reconciliation goals for ending sectarian violence?

With even General Petraeus saying in a letter to his troops that in this political objective the surge "has not worked out as we had hoped," the debate in the days ahead will revolve primarily around the Iraqis' political shortcomings and what that should mean for US policy.

That debate falls broadly into three camps:

1) The political failures show that Iraq is in a civil war the US cannot stop, so US troops should come home.

2) US security interests are served by the surge's military successes, and the rug should not be pulled out from under local Iraqis, such as the Sunnis of Anbar Province, who are starting to act without the central government.

3) As a "middle way," the US should begin a token troop drawdown in coming months to pressure the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to make political progress and to get the US on the road to an orderly disengagement.

President Bush plans to address the nation this week, probably Thursday night, when he is expected to offer his vision for the way forward after hearing the Petraeus-Crocker comprehensive report. Mr. Bush, who must deliver an Iraq progress report to Congress by Saturday, is expected to conclude that recent military advances should permit a small drawdown of troops to begin early next year. Petraeus has hinted at a reduction of a brigade, or about 4,000 combat soldiers.

Biggest worry: Iraq's political inertia

The underlying issue, though, remains Iraq's political inertia and what to do about a central government that many officials and experts in all camps have concluded is dysfunctional.

At the outset of the surge, 18 benchmarks, including some for the Iraqi government to meet, were suggested by the White House and endorsed by Congress for weighing progress. Now, as multiple reports explicitly or implicitly deliver failing grades – in particular for benchmarks directly related to national reconciliation – it's clear that the Iraqi government hasn't met expectations. The question now becomes whether it is even possible to translate US military advances into political progress by the Iraqi government.

"The real issue hanging out there is the question of the role of the central government in relation to the rest of the country," says Ken Pollack, an Iraq expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "The central government is hopelessly deadlocked at the moment, and while there are local areas of progress, in every case they are being undermined by the conflicts going on in Baghdad in the central government."

The central government's "negative impact" has led Iraqis and an exasperated Bush administration to weigh the merits of encouraging a replacement to Mr. Maliki, and to efforts by the US and some Iraqis to decentralize power in Iraq and reduce Baghdad's role.

Turning up the pressure a notch on Baghdad to move forward on national reconciliation is the idea behind the proposal by some US lawmakers for a small drawdown of US troops before the end of this year. Major benchmarks in this area include passage of legislation to equitably distribute Iraq's oil revenue, so-called "de-Baathification" measures to allow a return of mostly Sunni former Baathists to government employment, provincial elections, and constitutional reform.

Sen. John Warner (R) of Virginia, a key proponent of the small drawdown approach, believes such a move would convey to Baghdad that US patience is wearing thin.

Wrong signal, some senators say

But other senators, mainly Republicans who back the surge, say that approach is risky because it signals to principle US foes in Iraq – the Sunni insurgency, sectarian militias, and Al Qaeda in Iraq – that the US is switching to a withdrawal footing.

"I disagree with Senator Warner because the audience for statements made in Washington is not just Maliki's government," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina told the Monitor last week. "Any effort by Congress [to force a drawdown] will be misinterpreted not as a pressure device on the Maliki government, but as a lack of will."

Senator Graham says a recent visit to Iraq demonstrated to him that local-government and grass-roots efforts at intersectarian cooperation are growing – and can spread from the local level if the "improved environment" resulting from the surge is not cut short.

"I'm predicting that this attitude of making gestures toward each other is going to lead to national reconciliation," Graham said at a speech at Washington's American Enterprise Institute (AEI) last week. The result, he says, is that in "the next weeks, not months, there will be major breakthroughs in the benchmarks regarding political reconciliation."

Too much stock put in benchmarks?

Other surge advocates say the benchmarks, which reflect US goals of a year ago, should be revised in light of current conditions on the ground or dismissed, but should not be allowed to determine the future US course.

Using the benchmarks to judge the surge at this point in time would ensure US defeat, argues Robert Kagan, a military historian at AEI and an intellectual architect of the surge strategy. "What's not natural is [holding up] this list of benchmarks drawn up in the middle of last year [and saying] we're not meeting them, so to heck with it."

Mr. Kagan is part of a team of Iraq experts who say the "middle way" of beginning a US drawdown soon – before military progress is cemented by further political advances – risks reversing any gains against Islamist extremists and other insurgents.

Other observers, however, say a consensus is beginning to form – among the White House, various factions in the Pentagon, and proponents of a "middle way" in Congress – that the surge's military results allow for and political realities in Washington and Baghdad require some sort of move to begin drawing down US troops by early next year at the latest.

One element of that accommodation will be a plan that allows Bush – who realizes he need no longer fear a Congress bent on a timetable for completing a US withdrawal – to feel he is setting down the plan as he sees fit, some experts say. But another will be acceptance of the reality that Iraq is unlikely to emerge from its political stalemate any time soon.

Noting that "mainstream Democrats aren't talking about pulling the plug either," Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador and now director of Brookings' Saban Center for Mideast Policy, says the US "middle ground" must work with "the basic reality that what we have here is a 10-year conflict between Sunni and Shias." That means, he adds, that for some time to come Iraq's political factions "won't be amenable to a broad comprehensive fix."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Hudson River to get 24/7 scrutiny

from the September 05, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0905/p03s03-usgn.html

A new network of sensors will detail how ecological threats to the waterway affect the seacoast.

By Peter N. Spotts Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Over the centuries, New York's Hudson River has borne a nation's cargo, inspired its first unique art tradition, and absorbed the detritus of millions of people within its watershed.

Now, the 315-mile waterway is slated to undergo the most intense scientific scrutiny of any major river in the United States. Not only will the project offer fresh insights into how river systems work, it will also give researchers key data and warnings about environmental threats to the nation's mid-Atlantic coast.

The effort is perhaps the most visible sign yet that resource managers and researchers have come to recognize that the health of US coastal waters depends in large degree on the ecological vitality of the rivers that flow into them.

For the past decade, marine scientists and the federal government have worked to build a network of coastal and ocean observatories. Two weeks ago, a consortium of the nation's leading ocean research centers awarded a $97.7 million contract to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole, Mass., and two other institutes to develop and maintain the undersea hardware needed to field a network of coastal and global sensors. With the Hudson River project, dubbed the River and Estuary Observatory Network, such efforts are now set to push deep into the country's interior.

With a watershed that encompasses some 13,500 square miles and embraces 12 million people, "our river system is under constant human stress," says John Cronin, director of the nonprofit Beacon Institute for Rivers and Estuaries in Beacon, N.Y. The project "will help solve the problems and answer the management questions that haunt an ecosystem like the Hudson."

Under the aegis of the institute, several major research institutions, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and IBM have joined forces to set up a comprehensive environmental monitoring network along the waterway. It's being designed to track changes in everything from water chemistry and the flow of sediment and pollutants downstream to monitoring the movement of fish and their larvae.

The goal is twofold. The collaboration aims to develop a deeper understanding of how human and natural activities affect a river's ecological health. The team aims to design a sensor network that can be adapted to managing rivers worldwide. And in the process, they plan to build a monitoring and forecasting system that will give state and local officials the ability to see changes in a river's condition as they happen, as well as conduct modeling exercises to help resource managers find the most ecologically responsible practices for sustaining a river's health.

Last month, the project passed a milestone when the Beacon Institute and IBM announced an agreement under which IBM will provide the data-processing system to gather and analyze vast amounts of video, acoustic, and other data as it arrives from sensors.

The idea of monitoring river flow or taking sediment samples is hardly new, acknowledges Oscar Schofield, a Rutgers University professor who works on ocean-observing networks. But the efforts often are piecemeal.

Far more is needed, he says, including networks that run continuously and reach far into the surrounding watershed, to truly understand how a river works as a system.

For instance, scientists are trying to establish better ways to estimate such basic features as how changes in flow rate affect changes in sediment levels the river carries. Municipal water-supply managers are keenly interested in such mundane things because it affects the type of purification strategies they need to employ, especially if upstream sediments contain contaminants.

Nailing down that relationship is "one of those holy grail-type items," says Rocky Geyer, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Scientists have a basic mathematical rule of thumb they use to relate sediment loads to flows. But it takes long-term, detailed monitoring of five-, 10-, or 100-year floods to test how well that relationship holds up under extreme events.

Shipping companies also are excited by the prospect of having the network in place, adds Dr. Schofield, because they feel they often get blamed for dumping pollutants that may have come from elsewhere. A dense network of sensors could help determine if raw sewage in the water may in fact come from a nearby broken main, rather than from a ship's sanitary tanks.

Indeed, Schofield says, one of the challenges for the Hudson project will involve figuring out how to add what he calls the "human box" to the many other factors affecting the river – an ability to track and eventually model human interactions with the Hudson. The results would be blended with those from other biological, chemical, and physical calculations that simulations of the river would require. "If we're able to do that in 20 years," he says, "that would fundamentally change how we view our Earth and our world."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

On climate change, the 'target' goals for summiteers

from the September 06, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0906/p05s01-wogi.html

Science, government policy, and politics come together in official reports and at international conferences.

By Brad Knickerbocker

As a major public issue, climate change is divided into science and government policy – with both more than a little connected to politics. Increasingly, they all come together in official reports and at international conferences, where representatives try to make sense of it all in a way that points toward solutions.

Last Friday in Vienna, for example, negotiators from 158 countries agreed on rough targets aimed at getting major polluters to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

As the Associated Press reported:

"A week-long UN climate conference concluded that industrialized countries should strive to cut emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent of their 1990 levels by 2020. Experts said that target would serve as a loose guide for a major international climate summit to be held in December in Bali, Indonesia."

Are "loose guide" and "target" code words for "not much was accomplished?" That's the way the cynics at Grist, the irreverent and lively online source for environmental news, saw it. "UN climate meeting ends with a whole lotta nothin',"they headlined their piece.

"Deadlock and vagueness abounded…. [T]he final version of negotiations stated that such numbers provide 'useful initial parameters for the overall level of ambition of further emissions reductions.' Also, it was generally agreed that emissions should be reduced to 'very low levels.' "

The European Union and developing nations (particularly Pacific Island states) are seeking a tough agreement. Russia, Japan, Canada, and other advanced economies continue to resist anything that would force them to turn away from fossil fuels. Artur Runge-Metzger, head of the EU Commission delegation, told Reuters:

"This is a small step.... We wanted bigger steps. But I think the 25-40 percent will be viewed as a starting point, an anchor for further work."

Climate is also on the mind of the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) summiteers gathering in Sydney, Australia, this week. The meeting is an opportunity for the 21 regional leaders to show their dedication to tackling global warming. Reuters reported:

"Australia's Prime Minister John Howard, expected to call an election soon after the Sept. 8-9 summit, has placed climate change on top of APEC's agenda. APEC, Howard hopes, will counter voter perceptions he has done little to combat global warming…. Howard has ruled out binding targets but is hopeful of APEC setting a 'global goal' ahead of another September big emitters meeting in Washington, called by [US President] Bush to work out future emissions cuts."

Meanwhile, researchers, international aid donors, and officials meeting in Oslo for the Second Green Africa Revolution Conference warned that climate change "could worsen Africa's struggle to feed itself." The Associated Press reported:

"Africa imports about 25 percent of its food, and one in three of its residents suffer chronic hunger…. That will worsen if climate changes cause rains to dry up in some areas and flood others."

Already, the Kenya Wildlife Service says, "climate change is to blame for increasing conflicts between humans and wildlife across East Africa, and is heightening the risk that animal diseases will spread," according to a story published online by the Environmental News Service. It continues:

"Researchers … say climate change is to blame for rivers drying up and species migrating to new habitats, causing changes in ecosystems. This has led to animals, such as lions, killing domestic animals like sheep and goats in villages near the animal parks. Villagers have also complained of elephants, rhinos, and buffalo destroying food crops as they wander away from the parks in search of food and water."

While policymakers continue to discuss how to address climate change, the science of it aims at a moving target, according to the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo. The question isn't just how much climates will change but how quickly it will happen. Studies so far suggest a gradual shift would be less destructive. It notes:"

"We know far less about the consequences of rate of temperature increase than we do about the level. Nevertheless, we know enough to say that if we are to avoid dangerous climate change, then we should also be concerned about how quickly it occurs."

One of the great unknowns about climate change is whether "feedback loops" – the ways in which climate and nature respond to global warming – will accelerate or decelerate. That is one of many things that keeps scientists and policymakers busy.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Stopping forest loss in the land of Thoreau

from the September 06, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0906/p01s02-usgn.html

States like Massachusetts are losing 72 acres per day to urbanization.

By Caitlin Carpenter Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor

It's enough to make Henry David Thoreau weep.

New England – the home of Vermont maple trees bursting with sweet syrup, and balsam fir and red spruce spread across New Hampshire's White Mountains – is losing its forests.
Of all America's forests under pressure from development, New England's are shrinking the fastest.

The problem is severe enough that some conservation groups say they have limited time to act.
"The window for conserving forests is closing," says Andy Swinton, director of field science with The Nature Conservancy, a nonprofit habitat conservation organization. But "there's really an opportunity here, because the next 20 years will determine the character of New England forests. This is a race against time, and the time to act is now."

The region's forests had made quite a comeback in the past two centuries: As agriculture declined, fields went back to wooded land. Now, however, those forests are under threat – from homeowners, this time. In their push to create more housing in an area where home prices are already through the roof, developers are moving into wooded land.

The numbers are stark, particularly in southern New England. By 2050, 70 percent of Rhode Island and 61 percent of Connecticut will be urbanized, according to a recent report in the Journal of Forestry by two researchers with the US Agriculture Department's Forest Service. Massachusetts is already losing 40 acres a day to development, estimates Mass Audubon. These three states will lose the highest percentage of forest of any state by mid-century, the Forest Service researchers say.

Part of the reason for the region's forest loss is its population density. Its urban areas are already so developed that they're pushing out, often into surrounding forests. The other factor is New England's development pattern and lifestyle.

Take long-distance commuting. The Southwest may be famous for its vast metropolises, but the trend is actually more pronounced in New England, says Kathy Sferra, a land protection expert at Mass Audubon.

For example: To be able to afford the cost of living, many workers live in less expensive housing far from the urban centers where they work. That leads to more crowded highways. In addition to the 40 acres the state loses every day to sprawling development, it loses an additional 38 acres to the "hidden" cost of development, such as road construction.

And, as in the rest of New England, most of Massachusetts' residential developments are low density, meaning few people living in large houses on big lots.

Residential lot sizes have increased 47 percent since 1970 in Massachusetts, according to Mass Audubon. New England's average lot size for new residential construction is the largest in the country at 1.3 acres, and its median lot size is three times the national average, says the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for Real Estate and the Massachusetts Housing Partnership.

Meanwhile, the state's household size has shrunk 20 percent since 1970 to 2.5 people per household. Small wonder then that while New England's population increased 6.6 percent between 1990 and 2000, its total housing units grew 7.4 percent, according to the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training.

Houses are also getting bigger. The National Association of Home Builders found that 40 percent of new homes in the Northeast have four or more bedrooms, making the region the national leader in terms of the size of homes.

These trends have spurred conservation groups to work more strategically, buying and protecting large plots of land in key areas rather than small, isolated locations.

"We've learned that doing conservation willy-nilly doesn't help because we end up with fragmented forests," says Mr. Swinton. "Since development is going to happen, we now know we need systematic, collaborative planning with the government, land trusts, and nonprofits to make sure that development and conserved forest area are intelligently designed."

For example: The Nature Conservancy worked with West Greenwich, R.I., and other conservation groups to purchase 1,700 acres of forest surrounding its town in an effort to protect the land. The conservancy's Borderlands Project is looking to accomplish a similar feat in another town in Rhode Island or Connecticut.

Conservation groups are also helping local governments improve their planning for infrastructure that leads to development, such as roads and Interstates, while minimizing sprawl and forest destruction.

State governments are also getting involved. Last month, Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell (R) created a state office to "plot a new, antisprawl course." Rhode Island is now developing a land-use plan to encourage urban-center development. Massachusetts announced Aug. 4 that it would spend $50 million on conservation over the next five years, an increase of $20 million over its conservation spending during the past four years.

Forest-conservation groups next want to convince New England state governments to allocate some of the revenue generated through their greenhouse-gas reduction initiative to forest protection, according to Swinton.

Conservationists say that they'll need to bring all their tools to bear on the challenge of deforestation.

"Forests in this area made a comeback in the last century, but it looks like the pendulum is swinging in the opposite direction," he says.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

New tool to fight global warming: Endangered Species Act?

from the September 07, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0907/p03s03-usgn.html

A recent deal to protect the habitat of endangered coral may offer US environmentalists new leverage.

By Mark Clayton Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Environmentalists may have gained a powerful new legal weapon to fight global warming: the Endangered Species Act.

That's the fallout some expect from a settlement last week between environmentalists and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The government agency agreed to protect the "critical habitat" of elkhorn and staghorn coral, the first species to be recognized as threatened by global warming.

By protecting habitat, not just species, the federal government could be in a position to fight any threats to that habitat, including possibly, global warming, some environmentalists say. While no one expects the US to stop, say, a coal-fired power plant in the Midwest to save Florida coral, the settlement does expand the leverage of the 1973 law that protects species from extinction.

"We think this victory on coral critical habitat actually moves the entire Endangered Species Act [ESA] onto a firm legal foundation for challenging global-warming pollution," says Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group based in Tucson, Ariz., that filed both coral suits.

Indeed, the coral-protection victory may be just the beginning of a push to use the ESA to fight global warming, he and other environmentalists suggest.

The pair of coral species are struggling to survive because Florida's and the Caribbean's waters have become warmer and more acidic. Many scientists attribute the change to global warming.

Protected coral gets habitat safeguards

The elkhorn and staghorn coral won protected status under the ESA in May 2006. But it took a second legal battle to win a preservation of the corals' "critical habitat," part of last week's settlement between environmentalists and the US fisheries service.

The act's leverage will grow, environmentalists say, as climate change becomes recognized as a factor in species' decline. The number of species-recovery plans that cite global warming as a damaging factor has gone from zero as recently as 1990 to 141 today – with most of the growth since 2000.

While that's still just 9 percent of the 1,494 species listed at one time or another, the increase suggests that a large group of species still awaiting listing will have global warming cited as a major cause in their decline. The polar bear, 12 species of penguins, and the Kittlitz's Murrelet, an Alaskan bird that nests on the edges of glaciers, are all candidates, Mr. Suckling says.

Specific effects of warming speculative

Right now, any bid to fight the construction of a power plant by arguing that emissions might harm a species would probably be thrown out of court, because such climate-change effects remain speculative, Mr. Suckling concedes.

But in the next few years, if evidence of the threat of global warming on endangered species grows, so could the legal argument that the ESA be considered when a power plant or other carbon-intensive project is proposed, he adds.

Others are far less sure about that. Even some environmentalists are skeptical.

It is, for instance, unlikely that any judge will halt a power plant project just because its emissions contribute to a huge pool of global emissions that collectively harm coral, says Michael Bean, senior attorney at Environmental Defense, a Washington-based environmental group.

"The list of endangered species will in the future include many species threatened by global warming," he says. "But I'm skeptical that the [ESA] itself will be the source of any new restrictions on greenhouse-gas emissions. I think those will come from new legislation."

While winning a place on the endangered species list is always a big step – it's only the first. Habitat loss is the primary cause of species loss.

But only about 38 percent of the 1,367 species on the federal endangered species list actually have the much tougher protection that mandates critical habitat protection. Under the law, no area designated as critical habitat can be destroyed or adversely modified.

Those legal protections have played a major role in limiting development in key areas of the country. Critical-habitat designations covering 80 million acres along the West Coast have sharply reduced fishing in the breeding grounds of the Steller Sea Lion, a move many credit for the recent rebound in the population.

First listed as "threatened" in May 2006, the two coral species have declined 80 to 98 percent across their range. This spring a study found that 10 percent of the Caribbean's 62 reef building corals were threatened, including elkhorn and staghorn corals that used to be prominent.

Scientists studying the decline of coral that used to be the dominant reef-builders off the Florida coast are cheering the new settlement. They say they hope the critical-habitat designation will restrict access to the last remaining coral stands – and help win the legal fight on global warming.

"It's pretty exciting to find that a lowly marine invertebrate might actually someday be the legal catalyst for rulings against greenhouse-gas emissions," says Andrew Baker, a University of Miami marine biologist specializing on climate change impact on coral. "It's like getting Al Capone for tax evasion."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

For A.G., an old hand at terror war

from the September 18, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0918/p01s02-usju.html

Michael Mukasey, Bush's pick for attorney general, was a tough, conservative judge – with liberal admirers.

By Peter Grier Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Washington

Retired judge Michael Mukasey – President Bush's nominee to be his next attorney general – has for years played a crucial role in the US justice system's struggles to adapt to a new age of terrorism.

This past record may be only of limited use as an indicator of how Mr. Mukasey might act as head of the Department of Justice, note legal experts. Trying cases is very different from directing formulation of antiterror legal policy.

But if nothing else, Mukasey's rulings in this area show a flinty independence, which has won him admirers on both ends of the political spectrum.

"He is fair-minded, and I think [he] is seen as a dedicated lawyer and judge who will help to restore the Department of Justice to serving the nation and its ideals and not the occupant of the White House," says David Rudenstine, dean of the law school at Yeshiva University, from which Mukasey's son graduated.

Mukasey's handling of terrorism cases predates the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In the mid-1990s, he presided over the trials of conspirators in a broad plot to blow up New York City landmarks. Among other things, he sentenced the so-called "blind sheikh," Omar Abdel Rahman, to life in prison.

After the 9/11 attacks, Mukasey and other New York judges moved quickly to keep the city's federal judicial system intact – and also saw behind closed doors some of the first material witnesses detained by federal authorities.

Later, Mukasey issued some of the initial rulings in the case of Jose Padilla, a US citizen who was initially accused of a plot to detonate a so-called "dirty bomb" in the United States. While he agreed that the president could designate an American as an enemy combatant and hold him indefinitely, Mukasey also ruled that Mr. Padilla had a right to counsel – a ruling that at the time angered administration officials.

In his rulings and published writings, Mukasey clearly accepts the language that the administration uses to discuss the struggle against Al Qaeda, says Benjamin Wittes, fellow and research director in public law at the Brookings Institution.

In other words, he accepts that the fight is indeed a war – which would indicate that he also accepts the necessity for tough legal measures as part of that battle. But Mukasey does not accept every legal component of that war that the administration wants, says Mr. Wittes.

When the Justice Department asked that the judge reconsider his decision about legal representation for Padilla, Mukasey's response was not compliance, but exasperation. "Lest any confusion remain, this is not a suggestion or a request that Padilla be permitted to consult with counsel ... it is a ruling," he wrote in response.

Wittes notes that for this and other reasons he believes that, as attorney general, Mukasey would not side with those administration officials who claim the most expansive interpretation of presidential powers. "I think he's an excellent choice," says Wittes.

However, given that the Bush administration has fewer than two years remaining in office, a new attorney general might have little time to put his imprint on the department.

Mukasey has publicly urged the creation of a new model of a national security court to handle such difficult prosecutions as the Padilla case. But such a move would surely be controversial, says Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia.

"He will have other, higher priorities to pursue, such as settling disputes with Congress over FISA," says Mr. Tobias, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs US eavesdropping of national security targets.

Lawyers who have had dealings with Mukasey describe him as a serious jurist who was demanding of the lawyers who appeared before him.

"He is extremely bright and hard-working," says Michael Sommer, a former assistant US attorney. Mr. Sommer says the judge never showed any sense of partisanship. "Politics was not an issue in his courtroom," he says.

Senate Democrats initially were positive about the Mukasey nomination. Some felt that the pick was an effort to avoid the heated confirmation battles that might have developed over other potential nominees, such as former Solicitor General Theodore Olson.

"I am open-minded and hopeful that [Mukasey] will satisfy the concerns that I have and other Democrats have, and that he will become a consensus nominee," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D) of New York in remarks to reporters Monday. "But that's not a done deal yet." •Staff writers Ron Scherer and Gail Russell Chaddock contributed.

About Michael Mukasey

Nominated Monday as US attorney general, chief enforcer of federal law and head of the US Department of Justice.

Experience:

1988-2006: Judge of US District Court for the Southern District of New York (six years as chief judge). Presided over high-profile cases such as the 1995 trial of Egyptian sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and nine codefendants stemming from a plot to blow up New York landmarks, and a suit involving the Motion Picture Association's ban on releasing new movies to film critics.

1976-1988: Attorney (then partner), Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler. Rejoined the New York law firm in 2006 upon retiring from the bench, specializing in white-collar crime, media/entertainment law, and subprime lending.

1972-1976: Assistant US attorney, criminal division, Southern District of New York.
Education: Law degree, Yale Law School; bachelor's degree, Columbia University.

Background: Born and raised in New York City. Advises former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a Republican presidential candidate, on justice and terror-prosecution matters.

Religion: Jewish.

Family: Married to Susan (former school administrator); two children.

Sources: AP, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, US Department of Justice

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Should teachers be allowed to pack a gun?

from the September 18, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0918/p01s01-uspo.html

The case of an Oregon teacher fighting for the right to take a gun to school for protection from her ex-husband.

By Brad Knickerbocker Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Ashland, Ore.

In court documents, she's known as "Jane Doe." Innocuous enough, but the woman behind that pseudonym pushes one of the nation's hottest political buttons: guns and school safety.
What Ms. Doe wants to do is take her Glock 9-mm pistol to the high school in Medford, Ore., where she teaches.

She's licensed to carry a concealed weapon and she has what many supporters say is a legitimate reason for being armed: a restraining order against her ex-husband based on threats he's allegedly made against her and her children.

But district policy prohibits anyone except a law-enforcement officer from bringing a weapon onto campus. When word got out that she had a concealed-carry permit, administrators reminded her of that policy. There's the political rub: According to state law, "any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly."

Backed by gun-rights groups, Doe intends to challenge the school district in state court this week. Meanwhile throughout the country, lawmakers are filing bills that would make it legal for adult school employees to carry firearms, in some cases providing special weapons safety training for those who want to be part of their school's security force in addition to their classroom teaching duties.

Gun-rights groups and school boards around the country are paying close attention to the Oregon case.

"There's a specific state statute that prohibits local governments, including school districts, from passing laws or policies prohibiting people from owning or possessing firearms," says James Leuenberger, the Portland, Ore., lawyer representing the teacher.

"Jane Doe," who agreed to be interviewed by phone on condition of anonymity, says she does not want to be viewed as an "Annie Oakley." Trying to extricate herself from an abusive relationship led her to buy her first gun just a few years ago, she says. Prior to that she had not been an activist in defense of the US Constitution's Second Amendment provision regarding "the right to keep and bear arms."

But as a veteran teacher, she has come to believe strongly that having responsible armed adults on campus could have prevented tragedies such as those at Columbine High School in Colorado, Thurston High School in Oregon, and Virginia Tech University last April.

"I have no doubt at all that any time a criminal has gone into a school intending to commit violence they did so knowing nobody was going to be able to stop them," she says. "We've seen what happens when teachers do nothing or can do nothing, and that's not acceptable to me."

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 37 states have laws specifically banning guns at schools. In general, administrators, teachers' organizations, and law-enforcement agencies favor such laws. In the confusion of a school shooting, police officials have said, adding guns to the situation just makes the predicament more dangerous.

The state panel investigating the April 16 shootings by a mentally disturbed student who killed 33 people at Virginia Tech University (the nation's deadliest school shooting) agrees.

"If numerous people had been rushing around with handguns … the possibility of accidental or mistaken shootings would have increased significantly," the panel wrote.

But that has not stopped a push by the NRA and other gun advocates to allow guns on school property as a safety measure.

In Michigan last week, 16 state lawmakers sponsored legislation allowing teachers, administrators, and other school employees to carry concealed weapons on school property.

Ohio has a similar bill pending.South Carolina, Alabama, and Virginia are among several other states that have considered lifting school campus gun bans this year, according to Stateline.org, which tracks state issues.

Louisiana lawmakers refused to pass a bill that would have outlawed guns in college dormitories, and legislators in Maine similarly killed a bill that would have given colleges the authority to prohibit guns on campuses.

Anthony Stavros, a member of the Nevada State Board of Regents governing higher education and a Las Vegas police captain, has proposed deputizing university employees as reserve officers, trained and qualified to carry weapons. The Iowa Board of Regents is close to allowing campus police to be armed.

But efforts to allow guns in grade schools and high schools tend not to get very far in state legislatures. The South Carolina measure failed. Administrators and the state teachers' union in Michigan have voiced strong opposition to the proposal there.

So far, just one state - Utah - allows concealed weapons on campus. Utah's law applies to public colleges and universities. The University of Utah opposed the 2004 legislation that allows weapons on campus (including those owned by students with concealed carry permits), but lost in the state supreme court.

For high school teacher "Jane Doe," who takes her case to court this week, the issue is very personal.

"I have two children in school," she says, "and I would like to think that if something like that ever happened, there would be somebody there to do the right thing to protect my kids."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Public's views on Iraq war barely budge

from the September 19, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0919/p02s01-woiq.html

Bush's speech on Iraq and Petraeus's progress report on the 'surge' swayed few Americans, polls show.

By Peter Grier Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Washington

In Florida, retiree Robert Lacey says he believes the US military "surge" in Iraq has failed. Iraqi politicians were supposed to take advantage of increased security to settle their differences peacefully, and "that hasn't happened," he notes.

San Diego saleswoman Connie Howard agrees. Her father, husband, and son all have served in the military, and her son-in-law, a marine, is set for an Iraq tour, but she still judges the war a folly. "I don't want to see any of them go," she says of troops on their way to Iraq. "It's enough."
But Doug Brown, a Lockheed Martin employee from Buffalo, N.Y., says US troops need to stay the course. "If we pull out now, everything we've done will collapse and we'll have to go back in again 10 years from now," he says.

The American public long ago reached a verdict regarding Iraq, and, for the Bush administration, it isn't a reassuring one. Most US voters have little confidence in the administration's Iraq strategy – though the White House does retain a core of committed support.

So far there is little evidence that President Bush's speech to the nation Sept. 13, or last week's testimony by the top US commander and the top US diplomat in Iraq explaining the outcome of the surge , changed matters. A CBS News poll released Monday found 63 percent of respondents judged that things are going badly in Iraq, while only 34 percent said they are going well – about the same percentage split as before Mr. Bush's address.

More than half of respondents to the CBS survey said the surge of additional US troops, which began in January, has had no impact.

A long, slow slide in support

The conflict in Iraq has now gone on so long that most Americans have had time to make up their minds about it, say opinion experts. While speeches and other events have caused upward blips in the polls in the past, in general public attitudes have shown a long, slow slide.

"Americans' perceptions of the situation in Iraq have steadily worsened since the outset of the war," writes Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), in the most recent edition of her ongoing survey of public opinion and Iraq.

Take Maria Alessandro, a restaurant manager from Margate, Fla. She says she at first supported Bush and the war. "But the longer we are there, the worse it's been," she says.
Ms. Alessandro saw some of Gen. David Petraeus's testimony before Congress last week, and she thought the commander of multinational forces in Iraq seemed credible. Still, she is not sure everything he said was correct.

Alessandro wonders how well the US surge can be working – as General Petraeus contends it is – if bombs are still exploding in Baghdad and US and Iraqi troops are still being killed.
"It's clear the surge wasn't the success they wanted it to be," she says.

Doubts about Iraqi government

The US public also remains wary of the Iraqi government itself. Americans appear to have taken to heart Washington's message that Iraq's politicians have fallen short of their political goals, whatever the military results of the troop surge.

"I think it's hands down that Iraq is a failed state at this point," says Kristen Schaer, a barber shop coordinator in Boston.

Perhaps democracy is not the right form of government for Iraq, says Ms. Schaer, whose father is in the military. The US may have placed too much emphasis on trying to keep religion out of Iraqi politics, she adds.

"They need a government that works for them," says Schaer. "Whether that is secular or not doesn't matter."

Overall, the American electorate has become polarized as to whether invading Iraq was the right thing to do, writes Ms. Bowman of the think tank AEI.

In an AP/Ipsos poll taken earlier this month, 57 percent of respondents said the US made a mistake in going to war in Iraq, for instance. Only 37 percent said it was the right decision.
The public's judgment of the president's handling of the war remains a harsh one. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found only 30 percent of respondents approved of Bush's performance on Iraq.

But there was some good news for the White House in the NBC survey. That 30 percent rating represents an improvement from July, when only 22 percent of respondents approved of presidential Iraq policies. And Bush retains a core of convinced support, small though it may be.
"We might as well fight it over there," says Christie McHan, a civilian employee of the Navy based in San Diego.

"I believe we should continue and win the war against terrorism," says Lauri Hanson of Alexandria, Minn. "It means keeping the troops there and persevering until the president feels that Iraqis can stand by themselves."

While most Americans want troops to start coming home, the public as a whole is not in favor of an immediate pullout.

In the recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, a plurality of 37 percent of respondents said some troops should remain in the region for the long term, to try to prevent violence from spreading.

In a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll released Sept. 13, 22 percent of respondents said the US should pull out all troops immediately. Forty-two percent said troops should leave gradually, and 24 percent said they should leave only after the Iraqis are capable of providing their own security.

"For humanitarian reasons, we can't leave," says Steven Jorgensen, a potato farmer from Moses Lake, Wash. "Whether we like it or not, we're peacekeepers. It's a mess, an absolute mess, but because of who we are, we have to take a stand."

Voters also seem to be looking to the 2008 presidential election as a defining moment for the US presence in Iraq, with the expectation that Bush is unlikely to reverse his own course.
"The American public is just waiting for the next election," says Daniel Silva, a Boston hospital worker. "But that's a pretty long time."

• Randy Dotinga in San Diego, Jenna Fisher in Boston, and Richard Luscombe in Miami contributed to this report.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links