These are dark days in the eyes of many environmental journalists. A few have gone to war as soldiers. Some have been re-assigned to cover the war. Many are finding it hard to get environmental stories into a newshole dominated by war. Is it time for the e-beat to surrender?

Say "Nuts!" to that. It is time for the e-beat to do 25 pushups and start competing. In fact, many of your colleagues have already been finding and publishing tons of khaki-camouflage-clad environmental copy.

Some suggestions for environmental stories in wartime:

1 Don't ignore the "regular" environmental stories just because your editor is distracted. These are days of big environmental goings-on: Clean Air Act New Source Review, post-SWANCC wetlands policy (see related backgrounder, this issue), drilling (or not?) isn’t it not? in the Arctic Refuge, the fuel economy debate, various federal initiatives to increase logging, the struggle over Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal, and more. There is more mischief afoot than ever before -- partly because mischief-makers smell opportunity when the public is distracted.

2 The Pentagon this month launched a major offensive in a campaign it has been in preparation for more than a year (and, perhaps, a decade), to carve out new and larger exemptions to environmental laws for the military in the name of "readiness." The 90s saw a reversal of decades of de facto exemptions from (or ignoring of) environmental laws by the military. Nowadays, official backing-off is becoming P.C. Use night-vision to watch for riders and rules suspensions, rather than open floor battles. Look for local stories wherever there is a major military base.

3 Destruction of Iraq's environment. Yes, but by whom? There will certainly be blame enough for all sides. As always, peaceniks will advance this story with a covert anti-war agenda. That won't make the devastation less real. Saddam earns infamy with his torching of oil wells and the draining and devegetating of Iraq's southern marshlands (a modern example of environmental warfare). But it remains to be seen whether the rubble and unexploded ordnance brought by the U.S. will be restored or rendered safe. The UN Environment Progamme’s Post Conflict Assessment Unit has already announced its intent to study the damage in Iraq. (See: http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=307

4 Depleted uranium (DU). From the U.S. military's viewpoint, soldiers’ lives saved by tank-killing shells using DU outweigh concerns about the long-term health effects of DU left in the environment. But the worry is there. Health effects have been demonstrated scientifically -- although they are probably worst in people with heavier battle or occupational exposures. The consequences of DU leftovers from battle littering the landscape are harder to assess -- especially in a country where both science and journalism are tools of the state. Iraq has blamed increased cancer and disease incidence on DU from the Gulf War. And what Iraq says, goes(?!).

5 What is "Energy Security," really? Regardless of oil’s role in the war, the war for some has become justification for drilling for oil on pristine domestic public lands. Perhaps it is time for a longer, more critical look at some of the lobby groups’ clichés about energy security." Is one cause of "dependency on foreign oil" actually dependence on oil itself? Are "long supply lines" for our energy sources a possible security weakness? Can we be serious about energy security if we are unconcerned with energy efficiency? Is the Mideast oil infrastructure vulnerable to terrorist sabotage? Should we worry about stability in Venezuela, Nigeria, the Caspian, and Indonesia?

6 What's up with Gulf War Syndrome? Or, to be fair and accurate, the many unexplained symptoms and illnesses that seem to be associated with environmental and occupational exposures of soldiers during the Gulf War? The issues are many: vaccines, chemical warfare agents, biowarfare agents, depleted uranium, rocket fuel, other chemicals, pesticides, oil-fire smoke, desert dust, and post-traumatic stress, to name a few. What are the Gulf vets’ most common complaints? Has the Pentagon been more fair, open, and supportive in response to Gulf-war complaints than it was after Vietnam? What health problems will follow the current war, and how will the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs handle them?

7 Will there be "environmental defense" regiments in future wars? Reporters were filing from oil-spill-response vessels at the mouth of the Shat-al-Arab waterway before the war had even started. Specialized firefighters (non-military) were on the battlefield putting out oil well fires in the first week of the war, even before food-relief trucks started to roll. Prevention of dam demolition or spillage was another top-priority military goal. Restoring the drinking water purification plants of Basra to operation was a key to the Allies’ strategy for taking that city. And then there was the dust storm, which military meteorologists could only warn of, not prevent. Environmental offense? We considered climate warfare against the Soviets, but we don't talk about such things today. At least not on TV.

8 Chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. If somebody uses some form of one of these weapons (let's hope not), there will be an environmental story of major proportions. The story would vary according to which of the many possible forms of such weapons were used. For one thing, environmental factors will strongly influence how deadly these weapons are -- to the enemy, to the army using them, or to innocent civilians. Residues, migration, persistence, and (for bioagents) contagious spread are all potential environmental stories.

9 Terrorism and environmental infrastructure. What if, as Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge imagines, the war in Iraq motivates a new wave of terrorism attacks against the U.S.? What has the U.S. done in the last 18 months to make its environmental infrastructure less vulnerable, actually safer ... not just bureaucratic words, deck-chair arrangements, color-coding, and silence? Is the government doing a competent job? Are the media really still serving the public by not reporting on the vulnerabilities of chemical plants, drinking water systems, below-dam floodplains, gas and oil pipelines, hazmat transportation, etc. Is the government serving the public by assuring them they are safe before it assesses the safety of these systems? Is Congress serving the public by letting industry police itself?

10 Mine-hunting dolphins. Okay, they are not furry and there are scarcely enough of them to make a squadron, but they are kind of cute and will pose for pictures. Furry-Critter Journalism must adapt to wartime conditions. The Navy is using specially trained dolphins and seals to help clear Iraqi-set mines from the waterways for shipping coming in from the Persian Gulf. It is only a matter of time before PETA picks up on this story, although exploiting it will be tough as long as the dolphins keep getting restaurant-grade seafood and vitamins. Actual New York Daily News headline: "Flipper Goes to War." Just wait until the dolphins start coming home in body bags.