Satellite image of monster U.S. blizzard. Courtesy NASA

Two monster storms are pounding different parts of the planet right now, and it looks like both could influence how people think about climate change. Since folks tend to think of it in terms of today’s weather, you can guess how both of these storms are likely to play. 

Way off in the Pacific, Australians are hunkering down as Cyclone Yaris spins into their lives with big winds and heavy flooding. This is the second consecutive summer of lethal fires, floods and cyclones attributed to global warming. Environmentalists there are hoping Yaris brings that connection home to dwellers down under, who’ve resisted climbing on to the climate change band wagon. Observes Reuters:

If you add up all the indicting statements, conclusions and recommendations in President Obama’s oil spill commission report—released today—you’d think outlaws are running the oil industry under charter from federal regulators. Which is no surprise to us at Earthjustice.

Much of what the commission says is what we’ve been saying (in court, in Congress and in our public messaging) for many years: offshore drilling is too risky to be conducted the way our government has allowed. The process rejects science, embraces politics, ignores environmental calamity, and lets private business interests trump public interests. We can only applaud the commission’s recommendations for top-to-bottom change in how the industry approaches drilling and how the government regulates the industry.

We are particularly appreciative of the commission’s cautions and advisories about oil exploration in the icy waters of the Arctic’s Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Although the commission didn’t come right out and call for a moratorium on drilling those areas, its recommendations add up to virtually the same conclusion. Observes Earthjustice Vice President for Litigation Patti Goldman:

Since last April 20, when BP’s well rig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded and sank, we’ve been referring to the ensuing oil flood as “the BP oil spill.” Today, as we analyze a preliminary report from the federal government’s oil spill commission, we are inclined to change our reference.

Based on the report’s conclusions, it seems more accurate to call it the "Oil Industry Spill”—a designation that includes a federal regulatory system that for decades has acted more like an industry partner than a policeman.

To BP’s undoubted relief, the commission points its accusatory finger at the entire industry, not just at BP. Abetted by chummy federal regulators, especially those in the former Minerals Management Service, oil companies and contractors have over the years allowed laxness and laziness to infiltrate their drilling, says the report. Managers weren't managing, oil companies and regulators were colluding, and high risk was acceptable risk. Thus, while it was BP’s well that blew, the blame for it is shared by many.

So, now Massachusetts has joined the list of states that aren't waiting for Congress to turn this country away from greenhouse-gaseous sources of energy. That state has set aggressive limits on emissions and plans to reach those targets by relying on clean energy programs already in place, including components of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) of which Massachusetts is a part.

Only a handful of states, including the environmental trend-setter California, have set forth their own programs to lessen emissions. As reported by The New York Times, the Massachussets plan takes a different approach:

"Unlike California’s plan, however, which sets industry-by-industry regulations to achieve its mandated cutbacks, the Massachusetts plan relies largely on existing programs, like renewable-energy mandates, energy-efficiency standards for building construction and curbs in the electricity sector that are already in place under a multistate agreement known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative."

Three years ago, Kansas became the poster child of the nation's clean energy movement, thanks to a pair of stalwart political leaders who refused to approve a coal-fired power plant that would have increased America's global warming gas emissions by millions of tons each year.

Today, in the absence of those strong leaders, Sunflower Electric Co. finally got state permission to build its pollution producer. Under a new administrator, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment granted the permit after department workers spent nights and weekends processing the permit, presumably so they could beat a deadline that would have forced the new plant to meet stringent pollution standards kicking in Jan. 2.

The permit likely would not have been issued if former KDHE chief Rod Bremby hadn't been forced out a few weeks ago after refusing since 2007 to allow the permit. Supported by then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Bremby disallowed the permit because of its global warming gases output. It was the nation's first such permit rejection. But, Sebelius eventually left to join President Obama's cabinet, leaving Bremby to fight the good fight in the face of highly politicized, industry-friendly opposition. Earthjustice had a strong hand in that fight.

Not all is lost, however—not by a long shot. The Environmental Protection Agency last month warned that it is taking a careful look at the whole permit process. Here's what a top EPA official wrote:

Based on today's editorial, the gray wolf -- and other creatures defended by the Endangered Species Act -- have no finer friend than The Arizona Republic. Here's what the Republic had to say about attempts in Congress to gut the EPA:

Congress may fire a shot in the dark that hits endangered gray wolves.

After a court decision reversed Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's decision to remove gray wolves in the northern Rockies from the endangered species list, the administration is backing an effort in Congress to simply exclude those wolves from current or future protection under the Endangered Species Act.

President Obama wants to throw wolves under the bus. Never mind that the Endangered Species Act includes a process for delisting that is based on science, not politics. Or that the proposed congressional action undermines the law by setting a precedent that could result in any number of controversial species being abandoned to extinction.

Today, in the midst of Thanksgiving, we invite you to spend a minute and 17 seconds with us as we honor the many Earthjustice supporters responsible for significant achievements this year on behalf of people, wildlife and the wild places we all love.

We've put together a simple, elegant video story of four of those achievements. As one of our supporters—or perhaps someone who might become one—you should instantly see how powerful and important that support is.

One of the stories in the video has direct impact on your life. Because of Earthjustice work, cleaning manufacturers are being forced to reveal chemical—and possibly toxic—ingredients in their products. We're talking about products you probably use or come up against every day.

Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska's cold waters

A new report on the perils of offshore oil drilling reminds me of an old saying about how today's generals are always preparing to fight yesterday's wars.

The report, by Pew Environment Group, warns that the lessons learned in fighting the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill are not good guidelines to make drilling in Arctic waters safe. Says Pew: "the risks, difficulties and unknowns of oil exploration and development are far greater in the Arctic than in any other U.S. ocean area."

In other words, let's not be fooled by oil industry assurances that the Gulf spill has prepared us to face down a spill in the Arctic. It's a different battleground. What barely worked in the warm waters of the Gulf will surely fail in a sea of ice. Here's how Pew puts it:

And here's yet another clue to the question of what happened to all that oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's blown well.

A Canadian toxicologist reports that dispersants did break up the oil and make it less visible—but in doing so, the oil was allowed to contaminate a volume of water up to 1,000 times greater than if the oil was left alone. As a result, the oil, along with the dispersant, was made much more readily available to living organisms, including micro-organisms and wiildlife.

On the plus side, the dispersed oil also became more readily available for hungry bacteria that devoured much of it, said Peter Hodson, an aquatic toxicologist from Queen's University in Ontario. However, he said, as reported by nature.com:

Headlines around the world today blared out this conclusion by President Obama's commission investigating the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico: it wasn't caused by greed.

So, we are to believe that BP, Halliburton and others involved in drilling the well did not have "an overwhelming desire to have more of something, such as money, than is actually needed"? By that definition of greed (Encarta dictionary), these companies are better humans than most of us. Raise your hand if you don't want more than you need.

Greed isn't the cause of the spill, but let's not pretend it isn't why the well was being drilled. Sure it was. Just like Rocco said in "Key Largo" when asked what he wants: "I want more." And more is why BP was drilling in deep water, literally over its head and all too willing to lie about its ability to handle a spill..

But, "more" isn't why the well failed. If there is a main culprit, it is a willingness of the involved companies to make pressure, profits and competition their values. From the moment that well was conceived to the moment it blew, safety and the common good became subordinate. Those values at the top trickled down into actions taken by supervisors and workmen at the well itself. That's what the commission actually found.