The operating assumption that generally prevails in Washington, DC, is that the facts should fit the political narrative, not the other way around.

Every once in awhile, someone comes along and tries to spoil the fun. Such was the case February 1 when Dr. Bernard Goldstein, a physician, toxicologist, member of the National Academies of Science's Institute of Medicine, and former Reagan administration appointee at the Environmental Protection Agency, testified to the House Science Committee's energy subcommittee about public health issues associated with hydraulic fracturing.

This was the hearing from which Josh Fox, producer of the anti-fracturing documentary Gasland was ejected and cuffed by Capitol Police. That unfortunate incident grabbed the headlines, but Goldstein's important testimony shouldn't be overshadowed by the fracas over Fox.

The subcommittee hearing was called to rake EPA over the coals about natural gas. (Sorry for the mixed energy references.) The point in contention was EPA's controversial study in which agency experts said they found evidence of hydraulic fracturing chemicals in an aquifer in proximity to the Pavilion gas field, a tight sands formation in Wyoming.

There was something for everyone in a blue ribbon commission's final report about managing waste from nuclear power plants.

The report, released January 26 and in such high demand that downloads crashed the commission's servers, drew praise from the Nuclear Energy Institute. And from utility organizations. And from Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and Senate majority leader who hates the Yucca Mountain waste repository. And from Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican and House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman who likes the Yucca Mountain waste repository.

Not bad for a bipartisan commission charged with the thankless task of recommending alternatives for disposing of some 70,000 metric tons of hot stuff nobody wants in their backyard.

Strike that comment. Maybe there's a community that wouldn't mind having spent nuclear fuel in its backyard. It all depends on how it's asked. The Swedes have figured out that honey works better than vinegar. We could learn from their example. More on that in a bit.

Two of the blue ribbon panel's recommendations were: 1) geologic disposal is the only practical way to dispose of spent fuel rods that can no longer support productive fission reactions, and 2) a "consent-based approach" should be instituted for finding the right location for the burial ground.

Here's the scoop: It wasn't so long ago that forecasts of declining domestic production from "mature" gas fields resulted in a flurry of proposals to build terminals for importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from overseas. LNG is floated across oceans in special ships fitted with bulbous, imposing tanks for keeping the gas chillled to at least 259 degrees below zero Fahrenheit.

Now, with domestic shale gas production surging--up by a factor of nearly 13 between 2000 and 2010-- the market for importing LNG into the U.S. has dried up. The gas guys are talking about exporting LNG in order to chase higher prices available in Asian and European markets.

There have been rumbles from industrial gas users and publicly owned gas utilities that exports would drive up prices for domestic consumers. Last week, the U.S. Energy Information Administration released a study that in essence said, yup, exports would cause prices to rise -- for everyone: homeowners, businesses, and industries. During the 2015-2035 period, residential customers, for example, would see price increases averaging 3.2 to 7 percent per year over the study's business-as-usual scenario.

The collection, called Documerica, was unearthed recently by the National Archives. (Many photos are available on Flickr.)

A few observations are in order. One, it's hard to imagine today's EPA initiating a similar project without it being skewered by melodramatic vocal chords from the talk radio/blogosphere fever swamps. Two, it presents striking evidence of how far the United States has come in taking better care of the air and water on which our lives, communities, economy, and well being depend. We can be proud of what we have accomplished as a nation, but remember what they say about eternal vigilance.

In cruising through the photos, it's remarkable to look back on how much we used to abuse the environment. A photo by Charles Steinhacker shows a paper mill outflow pipe pouring ugly liquid refuse into Maine's Androscoggin River.

10. Kindergarten teachers descend en masse onto the Hill to refresh their former students' memories about critical life lessons: You have to share and you can't have your way all the time.

9. Congress resumes passing wilderness bills, starting with legislation that has bipartisan support in California, Idaho, Washington, Nevada, Michigan, and Tennessee.

8. Lawmakers realize the Antiquities Act works just fine as a remarkably effective tool for protecting rare natural and historic treasures, and decide to leave it the hell alone.

7. Lawmakers realize that retaining protections for roadless areas and wilderness study areas is in the public interest and decides to leave them the hell alone.

Well, they did it. During the sausage making that went into a 2012 budget bill last week, a House rider slipped through that bars the Department of Energy from enforcing incandescent lighting efficiency standards that begin taking effect on January 1. Assuming the bill is passed and signed into law, as seems likely at this writing, the standards stay on the books, but until the end of the fiscal year next September 30, DOE can't enforce them. Even though lighting products that comply with the 2012 standards already are on the shelves at a home improvement store near you.

I know, I know. Only in Dee Cee. As an associate of mine put it: "A remarkably dim-witted decision, even by current political standards."

The result of Congress acquiescing to talk radio demagogues haranguing that freedom isn't free without 100-watt incandescent light bulbs is likely to be marketplace confusion. Lighting manufacturers, who invested millions of dollars in good faith to design and produce light bulbs that meet the standards, are left with at least nine months of uncertainty. The standards already are in effect and being enforced in California, so the lighting industry faces a patchwork that would make life unnecessarily difficult. Congress, despite all its talk about helping business create jobs, has just thrown a spanner into the works for one industry in order to indulge the political fringe in another ideological excursion.

Senator Jeff Bingaman, the New Mexico Democrat who chairs the Energy and Natural Resource Committee, believes Congress' latest banana peel moment "may have little practical consequence on which incandescent bulbs are available in stores because, starting Jan. 1, it will be illegal to produce or import the inefficient, wasteful bulbs in the United States. The five major lighting manufacturers have already switched to making and selling the better bulbs." Hope Bingaman is right.

It's that time of year when people compile Top 10 lists—10 best of this, 10 worst of that, 10 best funny cat videos, 10 worst campaign ads (which presupposes the questionable assumption that there are any good campaign ads).

Just in time for the coffee table book season, the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation has published an online volume (Spanish and French versions also available) detailing the air emissions of some 3,000 power plants in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico—the three parties to the NAFTA trade deal that has a lesser-known environmental side agreement that spawned the commission.

The document, which details top 10 lists for power plants in each of the three countries, is a treasure trove for pollution voyeurism, although the data is of 2005 vintage, the most recent year the commission could pull together information from across the continent. Being parochial, we'll let our Canadian and Mexican readers explore the emissions profiles of their countries' champion power plants. Here in the U.S., the winners, all of them coal-fired, are:

If EPA goes ahead, does that mean the lights will go out in coal country? If your only source of information is press releases coming out of what Ronald Reagan called the "puzzle palace" on Capitol Hill, you'd best lay in a supply of candles. But The Daily Green's readers don't take everything they hear coming out of Dee Cee at face value, right?

Reliability of the electric power system--its ability to deliver juice 24/7/365--has been one of the neuralgic issues surrounding EPA's proposed rule, which comes straight out of the Clean Air Act's provision requiring limits on 189 toxic air pollutants using what the law calls "maximum achievable control technology," or MACT in the acronym-happy world of environmental politics. So, when you hear politicians rattling on about "Utility MACT," that's what they're talking about.

For all intents and purposes, the rule would apply to coal-fired power plants and would come into force in 2015. Critics say the rule would force utilities to shut down coal plants, impairing reliability, or force them to take too many of them down at once for pollution control retrofits, also impairing reliability.

Today is the 11th day of the 11th month of the 21st century's 11th year.

It's 11-11-11. Eleven is supposed to be a lucky number. As Schoolhouse Rock described it back in the day, "Eleven will always be a friend of mine."

It's a good day to be upbeat and put out a list of 11 great examples of America's natural and historic heritage. These are places to put on a bucket list. And please, this list is subjective. Feel free to disagree and develop your own list of 11. There are plenty of examples to choose from.

Such as:

1. Yosemite. It's where the national park idea germinated, when in 1864, President Abraham Lincoln granted Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove to the state of California for "public use, resort, and recreation." Lincoln's action set a precedent for establishing national parks, which have been described as America's best idea. Yosemite's roaring waterfalls, towering sequoias, stunning mountain vistas, spectacular trail views, granite fastnesses, and quiet back country make up a dreamscape for inspiration. Upon awakening at a snow-covered campsite atop Glacier Point in 1903, Theodore Roosevelt exclaimed, "I never felt better in my life!" And so will you, after a trip to Yosemite.

2. Yellowstone. America's first national park was established in 1872 to protect its "curiosities and wonders." They include the geological—bubbling mud pots, steaming hot springs, and bellowing geysers, a greater concentration of hydrothermal features than anywhere else in the world and signs of Yellowstone's explosive past as the caldera of a volcanic supereruption. They include the biological—grizzly bears,wolves, bison, elk, pronghorn, moose, cougars, lynx, bighorn sheep, a greater concentration of mammals than anywhere else in the lower 48 states. Curiosities and wonders, indeed.

3. The Grand Canyon. From rim to bottom, nature has left a geological memory album stretching back 2 billion years, in the form of nearly 40 rock layers exposed by the Colorado River's remorseless carving of the great chasm. From top to bottom, the ecological zones shift dramatically, from lowland desert scrub to high-elevation spruce-fir forest. Theodore Roosevelt said at the canyon's rim in 1903, "Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it. The ages have been work on it and man can only mar it … Keep it for your children, your children's children, and for all who come after you." Good thing we listened.

Got a nice compliment from Headwaters Economics about last week's posting that profiled wilderness areas that Republican lawmakers have proposed for permanent protection.

Headwaters sent me a link to a research brief from Utah State University professors arguing that wilderness designations are a net economic loser for nearby counties, resulting in reduced per capita income, payrolls, and tax receipts. Headwaters came right back at 'em with a critique of the brief, pointing out analytical flaws and the countervailing, peer-reviewed evidence documenting the economic benefits of wilderness for nearby communities.

It's never a bad idea to push back against factions and interest groups pushing tiresome, discreditable arguments that conservation is bad for the economy. Never tire of pointing out that Arizona mining interests went berserk when Theodore Roosevelt invoked the Antiquities Act on a breathtaking scale to protect the Grand Canyon from mining. Now, Arizona proudly calls itself the Grand Canyon State to advertise one of the world's greatest tourist attractions. Roosevelt once said, "There is nothing more practical than the preservation of beauty."

There is a risk, however, in boiling arguments for wilderness preservation down to dollars and cents. Because if all wilderness advocates talk about is dollars and cents, then that's all people will think wilderness is. There is more to wilderness than drawing in visitors who can support local businesses, expand payrolls, and enlarge gateway communities' revenue bases, as important as those are. Wilderness is essential for all the reasons wilderness champions more eloquent than me--Howard Zahniser, Wallace Stegner, John Saylor, Edward Abbey--have stated before.