We take the morning’s green news by the horns here at Cool Green Science — including a great story about Central Asia’s saiga antelope (above), being brought back from the brink of extinction by good old-fashioned conservation:

1. European leaders are openly questioning whether the United States has the political will to address climate change, reports The New York Times. Todd Stern, the U.S. chief negotiator on climate, says the Euros just don’t understand our system.
2. Climate change a bigger business than military spending? So says a new report from the investment bank HSBC — which also says climate might be a great way to boost job growth…or just be terribly inefficient, says Environmental Capital. (Hat tip: Yale Environment 360.)
3. Maya Lin (who of course designed the Vietnam War memorial in Washington, DC) has a new memorial called “What is Missing?” honoring lost species…and those at risk of extinction. (Hat tip: Triple Pundit.)
4. Will increasing U.S. biofuel production mean a bigger “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico? Yes, says a new study in Environmental Science and Technology. (Hat tip: Journal Watch Online.)
5. Finally, a success story! The Saiga antelope of the Central Asia steppes has recovered from the brink of extinction with a concerted conservation effort. Read Mongabay for an interview with the founder of the Saiga Conservation Alliance.

(Image: Saiga antelope. Credit: jamasca66/Flickr through a Creative Commons license.)

There might not be much hope for the Goose Creek milkvetch, but at least you can now heat your home with an ethanol fireplace. Read on for that and weightier topics like sunspots, the Peruvian Amazon conflict and REDD (one of the most important strategies in fighting climate change, says Conservancy president Mark Tercek).

1. Goose Creek milkvetch (pictured above) is a rare plant found in a small area on the border of Utah, Nevada and Idaho. After five years gathering data and debating, the USFWS recently decided that while the plant deserves protection, it won’t be added to the endangered species list because of other priorities.
2. Heat your home with biofuel? Ethanol fireplaces are the latest in green heating… Treehugger questions whether they’re really green or not.
3. The dispute between indigenous tribes and the Peruvian government continues. In the latest development, Ecopolitology reports that the government has incorporated some communities into a new national reserve without their consent – and tribal members fear this will limit their rights to natural resources there.
4. Climate change skeptics like to point to sunspots as a possible explanation for global warming… now The Economist raises the question again: could sunspots have an influence — good or bad — on Earth’s temperature?
5. Marc meets Mark… journalist and author Marc Gunther talks with The Nature Conservancy’s president and CEO Mark Tercek about REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation) — potentially the most effective strategy in dealing with global climate change.

(Image: Goose Creek milkvetch. Credit: Jody Fraser/USFWS. Source: Nevada Natural Heritage Program.)

Renewable energy is poised to be the wave of the future, but what impact will it have on landscapes and wildlife?

In the United States, at least 67 million acres will be developed for new energy projects by 2030. While these projects — including wind, solar and biofuels — will help reduce carbon emissions and energy use, they will require a lot of land that is currently open or undeveloped — land that wildlife depend on.

So how can we develop new energy projects that don’t harm nature or wildlife? One key aspect is proper siting of projects, says Nature Conservancy scientist Rob McDonald. He co-authored a new study published in today’s PLoS One online journal that examines the impacts of “energy sprawl” — and says we need to start thinking about it now to ensure that new energy doesn’t harm nature and wildlife.

We sat down with Rob to find out more about the study and its findings:

Q. First of all, can you explain exactly what “energy sprawl” is and why it matters now?

Rob McDonald: “Energy sprawl” is our term for the amount of space it takes to produce energy, and the general tendency for energy production to take more space over time. Energy development can, if improperly sited, impact natural habitats and the wildlife that depend upon them, so The Nature Conservancy is concerned about energy sprawl’s potential impact.

We initiated the current study because it’s a moment of unprecedented change in the energy sector. As Congress considers ways to reign in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, there will be a switch to more renewable energy technologies that will need more space. In this study we wanted to quantify the potential future scope of these energy sprawl impacts.

Q. What did you find out — will new energy production in the United States have significant impacts on nature?

Rob McDonald: U.S. energy policy picks which technologies are winners and losers, and in the process picks which habitats will be impacted and which won’t.

For instance, if carbon capture and storage becomes available for coal-burning power plants — which would require significant government subsidy to spur its development and implementation — then coal mining has to continue to feed those power plants, with impacts on specific habitats.

On the other hand, since the United States can meet some of its energy needs through the use of coal, the availability of carbon capture and storage for coal means that there would be relatively less growth in the wind power industry, limiting the impact from that technology in windy parts of the country.

But there is a potential for a fairly large amount of energy sprawl, with or without action by the U.S. Congress on a cap-and-trade bill. It turns out that the majority of the land-use impacts for producing energy will come from growing biomass for liquid fuels like ethanol, as mandated by the renewable fuel standard and other laws. Those laws are already in place, so whatever Congress does with climate change policy will not affect their energy sprawl impact.

Q. Were you able to identify what types of new energy projects will have the most impact on nature? The least?

Rob McDonald: It’s important to remember that energy sprawl concerns are only one of several ways to evaluate different energy production techniques, including climate change implications, cost efficiency, job creation, and issues of energy independence. Moreover, the environmental impact of much energy sprawl could be limited with proper siting, a philosophy The Nature Conservancy calls Energy By Design.

From the perspective of The Nature Conservancy, any new energy project that helps reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases while avoiding impacts to sensitive species is a good project. We are not specifically advocating for any one energy production technology, just serious consideration of the potential environmental impacts of energy sprawl.

Q. So how do we proceed with energy development on a mass scale — 67 million acres — in a way that also takes into account impacts to nature and wildlife?

Rob McDonald: There are three things that conservationists can advocate for to avoid impacts to nature, or minimize them:

• Maximize energy conservation and energy efficiency as much as possible. Saving energy saves land by avoiding energy development.
• Build incentives for the use of abandoned or degraded land. Particularly for biomass growth for liquid fuels or for electricity, natural habitat impacts could be minimized if the clearing of natural habitat was avoided.
• Where possible, site new energy development only where sensitive species will not be impacted.

Q. But how can we make sure that policymakers are taking into account the potential impact of energy development on lands and wildlife?

Rob McDonald: The Nature Conservancy is talking with policymakers on Capitol Hill all the time to make sure that energy sprawl concerns are one of the issues that are on the table as energy policy is discussed. It’s been difficult, because we want to stress our strong support for climate change legislation while describing how the details of the legislation can be altered to minimize energy sprawl.

The same kinds of discussions are taking place in many states where the Conservancy works, as several state legislatures consider their own energy policy. Members of the Conservancy who feel passionate about this issue should contact their local office to find ways to get involved.

Q. Finally, biofuels — good or bad?

Rob McDonald: I’m not interested in labeling any technology as either good or bad. Biomass production for biofuels or for electricity will be one important part of a new energy system that avoids catastrophic climate change, and should be. Biomass production can create jobs, promote energy independence, and in some cases limit carbon dioxide emissions, and those benefits need to be compared to the potential negative impacts of energy sprawl.

Sadly, it is getting hard to have a rational, scientific debate about those pluses and minuses, because there is a lot of rhetoric out there from both sides that makes simplistic arguments about the worth of biofuels and attacks all data that isn’t consistent with their preconceived conclusions

So, I think the good versus bad debate is a bit of a distraction, and has sadly led to people not discussing siting issues or energy efficiency issues as much as they should.

(Image: Antelope grazing near wind turbines. Source: Carl Stone/istockphoto.com.)

Will Steven Colbert try to stop Bill McKibben from saving the world? Will the tenkile — the world’s rarest tree kangaroo — recover from near decimation? Will Kenya and Uganda go to war over a fish? We can’t promise any answers, but we can deliver the top Cool Green News links you should read today.

1. Bill McKibben of 350.org made an appearance on the Colbert Report last night… watch the clip and see how Bill held up against the relentless jokester. Did he get his climate change message across? Let us know what you think.
2. Fish are the source of a controversy over tiny Mgingo Island in Lake Victoria along the border between Kenya and Uganda. The island –unlike the rest of the lake — is still home to huge populations of Nile perch.
3. Finally, a study that proves downloading music online is better for the environment than buying physical CDs — but interestingly, the carbon savings mostly come in the form of not driving to the store to buy your disc. (Hat-tip: The Vine.)
4. The world’s rarest tree kangaroo — the tenkile, or Scott’s tree kangaroo — is making a comeback in Papua New Guinea. The tenkile population had declined to fewer than 100, but a conservation group has helped turn the situation around by getting local communities to reduce hunting of the animal and protect its forest habitat.
5. Green, Inc. asked readers to submit their nominations for places that should be national parks — check out their short list and see if your favorite spot made it.

Wasn’t it Michael Caine in the Austin Powers’ movie “Goldmember” who said there are two kinds of people he couldn’t stand — “those who are intolerant of other cultures, and the Dutch”? We don’t take stands on whole peoples here at Cool Green Science — but the Dutch are doing some pretty funky things with Smart Cars these days (not to mention building floating apartment buildings). Read below for that and today’s hot green links:

1. The United States and China have finally agreed to cooperate on energy and climate initiatives — but the devil will be in the details, says Andy Revkin at DotEarth.
2. The Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin tells The Nation magazine that U.S. climate legislation will probably happen by 2010 — but that international climate negotiations might be a stumbling block. (Hat tip: Grist.)
3. Don’t fight sea-level rise, adapt — that’s the theory behind Europe’s first  floating apartment complex, reports Inhabitat. (It’s in the Netherlands, naturally.)
4. Speaking of the Netherlands…people there are now tossing eco-friendly Smart Cars into the canals — for sport, says Treehugger.
5. The “dead zone” for aquatic life at the mouth of the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico might have shrunk this year, reports Wired Science — but scientists are still worried “more pollution could cause the Gulf’s ecosystem to collapse.”

(Image: Smart car parked near Amsterdam canal. Credit: EphusBailey through a Creative Commons license.)

First, we hear Steven Chu has a Facebook page. Now he’s appearing on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. What next? Read on for all the latest Cool Green News on this fine Cool Green Morning.

1. Will farmers do better financially under the proposed Waxman-Markey climate bill? Environmental Capital says carbon offsets are a gold mine for farmers.
2. Baseball stadiums in the United States and Japan are going green, from purchasing wind energy to getting LEED certification.
3. Steven Chu’s appearance on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart proves he’s not a zombie, says Red Green and Blue. (Watch the video above and judge for yourself.)
4. NOAA released a new report this week warning that Caribbean reefs face a high risk of coral bleaching this summer, due in part to warmer ocean temperatures.
5. Mongabay is hopeful that we can actually save rainforests through a new climate change mitigation program that would send funding to protect rainforests in developing countries.

Did you miss our lead scientist Sanjayan’s appearance on “Late Night with David Letterman” on Monday? Watch part 1 in the video above and part 2 here…and see how Letterman thinks we’re all doomed by climate change, despite Dr. S’s best efforts to convince him otherwise. Then read the rest of today’s top green links below…which are not all that much cheerier. (Sorry — we’re just the messenger.)

1. $10 a gallon gasoline? That’s what Elon Musk — the founder of PayPal (and now chair of Tesla, the electric-car manufacturer) — says it’ll take to pay for all the environmental damage fossil fuels have and will create, reports Environmental Capital.
2. Did an orangutan lose its home for your dinner table? You might know soon: A new program in Britain — the Forest Footprint Disclosure Project — will push corporations to reveal how their business practices lead to tropical deforestation, reports Environmental Leader.
3. Is consumer power enough to turn the world green? Joel Makower reviews Daniel Goleman’s new book Environmental Intelligence (about the market for “green” products) and has serious doubts.
4. Talk about biblical sounding plagues — poisonous snakes that used to live in southern Iraq’s marshes have moved into towns and are killing cows and people, now that those marshes have gone dry from water diversion and less rain. (Hat tip: 60-Second Science.)
5. It’s now known around here as the David Letterman question — why aren’t humans getting it about climate change? Dot Earth reports more scientists are blaming…scientists’ bad communication habits.

Celebrities are the conscience of America. They tell us how to vote, help set our foreign policy and provide guidance on healthcare decisions. Without celebrities, we would have no moral compass.

Many celebrities make great contributions to society through the environmental movement. They save the whales, fight deforestation with their chest hair and design vegan shoes (which fall victim to the economic crisis). Celebrities so love the environment, there’s an entire website — updated several times a day — dedicated to their infatuation with Green Living.

But as with any heated love affair, the outside world has many and varied opinions of the celebrity/environment pairing:

• Some find admiration in the fact that professionals, so necessarily self-centered, would leave room in their lives for the common good.
• Others see private jets, gated compounds, homes on six continents and carbon footprints the size of the Hollywood Hills and cry: “Hypocrisy!”
• Others, myself included, see celebritology as a minor and somewhat amusing facet of a much larger community dedicated to preserving the natural world.

For the environmental movement, celebrities are like the goofy cousin that comes to the family reunion with piercings and a biker boyfriend or girlfriend. (Or all three.)

Personally, I think it’s fine that celebrities are raising awareness of the environmental problems we face. If they don’t always — or never — practice what they preach, then that’s a personal decision they have to live with when their heads hit their $5,000 pillows at night. And some, in their youthful exuberance, really do put themselves in harms way to defend their cause, while some older, more seasoned celebs take part in some honest — if not altogether thoughtful — debate on the issues. (See the clip above.)

So I say: Let’s give celebrities the benefit of the doubt. They’re entitled to their opinions, even if they are a bit hypocritical. At the end of the day, celebrities are, in fact, just like us — human beings full of contradictions, failings, good and bad intentions. They just get their picture taken more often.

Let’s listen and try not to judge too harshly. We can start tonight as global celebrity David Letterman welcomes Sanjayan, lead scientist for The Nature Conservancy, to the “Late Show.”

1. It’s Bike-to-Work week, so it’s perfect timing for the inauguration of North America’s largest bike share program — welcome to Montreal’s new Bixi bike-share system.
2. Public relations spending by opponents of cap-and-trade legislation is high – $76 million to be precise, and that’s just in the first quarter of 2009, reports Environmental Leader.
3. A new report says the growing use of electric gadgets like cell phones and laptops could become a problem — they already represent 15 percent of household electricity use and, if trends continue, this could triple by 2033.
4. Climate policy wonks have reason to be hopeful: democrats reached agreement on several key elements of the Waxman-Markey bill, which means the bill could soon  pass through the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Vine explains the deals. 
5. With graduates facing a tough job market this year, you’ve got to wonder if a “green” degree helps or hurts. The first class of students at Arizona’s School of Sustainability just graduated, and Andrew Revkin interviews the school’s director about what it means to study sustainability.