Via the Guardian, the Environmental Defence watchdog group has a new report out showing that...

  • Americans represent 5 percent of the world's population but drive almost a third of its cars

  • Americans' cars account for nearly half the carbon dioxide pumped out of exhaust pipes into the atmosphere each year

  • U.S. cars play a disproportionate role in global warming because they're less fuel efficient than passenger vehicles used elsewhere in the world; they emit 15 percent more carbon dioxide because they're less fuel-efficient and are driven across America's wide open spaces (see "sprawl," "exurbs"...)

  • The average U.S. passenger vehicle has a fuel economy of less than 20mpg
  • Overall U.S. fuel consumption will continue to rise in the next few years

  • More SUVs are still sold in the U.S. than any other type of car. (This has been true since 2002.)

  • SUVs "soon will be the main source of automotive CO2 emissions", emitting the equivalent of 55 large coal-fired power plants.

Ethanol, anyone? Read the full report here.

Things don't look good for net neutrality:

In a dramatic tie vote Wednesday, a U.S. Senate committee rejected an amendment that would have preserved the status quo of equal pricing for all Internet traffic, an issue known as network neutrality.

Although the net neutrality amendment did not prevail in the committee, the issue could be revived. The amendment that failed was part of a larger telecommunications bill that passed the committee and now heads to the full Senate. A similar amendment could be reintroduced into the larger bill before that vote. Tim Wu wrote an essay in Slate recently about why people should care about network neutrality—"The future of the Internet depends on it!"—so go read that for a good backgrounder.

Here's a bright idea: Close he EPA scientific libraries so regulators can't get at the science that, under law, they are supposed to base their decisions on. No worries, a flack told the Washington Post--all that stuff is going to be digital anyway. Except that there's no money for that either. All but eliminating the agency's library network saves $2 million; according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the EPA estimates that "providing full library access saves an
estimated 214,000 hours in professional staff time worth some $7.5
million annually."

Marty Lederman has commentary on the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision today, ruling that the military tribunals set up at Guantanamo are improper, over at SCOTUSblog. Among other things, the Supreme Court has apparently ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to all detainees captured in the conflict against al-Qaeda. That seems to mean, if Lederman's right, that torture and "coercive" interrogation tactics will no longer be allowed, period. The CIA's interrogation tactics are "officially" illegal, and methods such as waterboarding and inducing hypothermia are now "officially" war crimes. The Court also ruled that the president does not have the power to ignore or violate congressional law.

This looks very significant indeed, and short of convincing Congress to pull out of the Geneva Conventions, perhaps, it certainly looks like the Bush administration has been reined in. What this means in practice, though, still seems very much up in the air—presumably Congress could respond by setting up new tribunals at Guantanmo, or modifying the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or granting the administration other new powers, or so forth… So we'll see what happens.

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald has a useful discussion here.

UPDATE II: The Court also seems to have rejected one of the administration's legal rationales for its illegal wiretapping program.

So Kentucky's Sen. Jim Bunning says he doesn't read newspapers, but he did pick up a copy of the Times long enough to read the financial-surveillance story, and he knows treason when he sees it.

Bunning equated the Times' story last week on the bank records to publishing the phone number of Osama bin Laden, saying the al-Qaida leader would be tipped and change his number immediately.

"In my opinion, that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, therefore it is an act of treason," Bunning said of the story, which detailed how the government is analyzing a massive database on international money transfers.

Let the record reflect that to suggest that terrorists would have had no way to suspect that their records might be surveiled--through an agency that out and out advertises its cooperation with law enforcement), you have to assume that they're pretty damn obtuse. But no matter: Bunning's point really is that, as Ari Fleischer would have it, "people need to watch what they say, watch what they do."

"What you write in a war and what is legal to do for the federal government, or state government, whoever it is, is very important in the winning of the war on terror."

Asked if that could be a recipe for government abuse of civil liberties, Bunning responded: "It could be."

Forget betting on sports events; for my money, the most fun thing to gamble on these days is over who will be the next Secretary General of the UN. Kofi Annan is due to retire on December 31, and the battle to replace him has been raging for months.

A few weeks ago, Foreign Policy listed descriptions of all the major contenders, and their odds of replacing Annan, but that article appeared too early to take account of India's recent nominee, Shashi Tharoor. The Los Angeles Times, meanwhile, has come out in favor of dark-horse candidate Bill Clinton, although seeing as how most countries believe in the principle of regional rotation and share a bias for candidates from small countries, a Secretary General Clinton faces tall odds (1000 to 1, according to Foreign Policy). To keep abreast of the action, check out this spirited blog maintained by a University of Maryland grad student.

Orin Kerr makes a great point about presidential signing statements here. It's a grave problem that the president has decided that his Article II powers exempt him from having to obey every single provision of every bill signed into law, especially provisions he thinks are unconstitutional. But another—and perhaps bigger—problem is that Bush sometimes doesn't explain what, exactly, he disagrees with. If he did, then perhaps Congress could respond appropriately—perhaps by passing other laws to constrain the president if need be, and there might still be at least some semblance of checks and balances.

Instead, Bush just says that he's free to disagree with and disobey parts of the law, but declines to say which parts. To make the contrast clear, as a commenter at Orin Kerr's site points out, Bill Clinton occasionally used signing statements to disagree with parts of bills he thought unconstitutional (never to the extent Bush has, though), but he specified exactly what he was doing and why he disagreed. The same isn't true of Bush; basically, we have no idea what laws he thinks he can violate.

An investigation by the British Guardian has cast doubt on the Israeli government's claim that the seven family members killed on a Gaza beach in June died from a Palestinian mine, rather than IDF gunfire.

Israel had initially apologized for the attack, saying it was "aimed at stopping militants from firing into Israel." But that admission of guilt was soon retracted: the IDF launched its own investigation into the incident, and concluded that its forces were not at fault. According to The Guardian, the IDF now argues that the family was killed nine minutes after Israeli shelling of the area ceased: "But hospital records, testimony from doctors and ambulance men and eyewitness accounts suggest that the military has the timing of the explosion wrong, and that it occurred while the army was still shelling the beach."

Human Rights Watch has also called has also called the Israeli investigation inadequate. HRW researchers reached that conclusion in part from a June 19 meeting with Israeli Major-General Meir Kalifi, during which the general said that Palestinians "have no problem lying," and that Palestinian sources were therefore not considered during the IDF investigation. Perhaps this means that another controversial shooting incident, three years ago, merits reconsideration too.

Why are 800,000 young children in Africa dying of malaria each year when "when there are medicines that cure for 55 cents a dose, mosquito nets that shield a child for $1 a year and indoor insecticide spraying that costs about $10 annually for a household"? The New York Times tries to figure that out today. Insufficient funds are part of the reason; mismanagement and dysfunctional aid agencies are another:

Only 1 percent of [USAID's] 2004 malaria budget went for medicines, 1 percent for insecticides and 6 percent for mosquito nets. The rest was spent on research, education, evaluation, administration and other costs.
Social conservatives like Sen. Sam Brownback, to their credit, are trying to reform the "foreign aid industrial complex" and make things more efficient. Via Tapped, I also see that Joshua Kurlantzick has a good article in the Washington Monthly about efforts to fight malaria, which notes that USAID has been reluctant to push a new and effective malarial medicine for a variety of reasons, racism among them. Kurlantzick also knocks down the oft-repeated right-wing canard that people are dying in Africa because they're not allowed to spray DDT all over the place (contrary to what conservatives often say, they are allowed to do so, and anyway, that's only a partial solution). And the obsession with DDT has hampered the push to get effective anti-malarial drugs to Africans.

Ultimately, a lot of this comes down to money—namely, that current aid levels are inadequate. Private charity can't solve everything on its own. As the Times reports, the Gates Foundation has given $177 million for malarial controls. That's significant, but last year the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria came up $300 million short of what it needed to buy drugs. The Bush administration requested only $200 million for the Global Fund, half of what Congress had appropriated the year before. That's quite clearly not enough.

In another small victory for reality over fantasy, the AP called 100 climate scientists and asked how they rated the science in Al Gore's global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. The 19 who'd seen the film, which is in limited release, gave the doc a pretty unequivocal thumbs-up.

... Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right." ...

The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington. ...

And yet, and yet...

While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list. [Italics mine.]

"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day."

UPDATE: (Via ThinkProgress) Even Frank Luntz (he of the famed there-is-no-consensus-on-global-warming memo), has come around.

UPDATE II: (Via Grist) The natural order reasserts itself as Sen. James Inhofe raises "serious [sic!] questions about AP's bias and methodology."