CPC Helps Land Trusts Acquire New Lands & Fight Global Warming

Global Warming & Climate Change Resources

The Climate Crisis Coalition

The Weekly Edition

Climate Crisis Coalition

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Click the highlighted headlines for links to these stories.

 EPA and Climate Legislation

U.S. Chamber Announces Challenge to EPA on Regulating Emissions. By Jim Tankersley, LATimes, February 13, 2010. "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced late Friday that it would challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle with the Obama administration over global warming. The chamber said it was filing a petition with the agency challenging the EPA's process in determining that greenhouse gases endanger human health and are thus subject to Clean Air Act regulation. The challenge is likely to lead to a court battle.

"Chamber officials said they support action in Congress and international treaty negotiations to reduce greenhouse gases. But they said the EPA overreached in acting on its own and produced a flawed finding that would lead to other poorly conceived regulations in the future. An EPA spokeswoman said that although the agency had not seen the chamber's petition, the 'EPA issued its endangerment finding as a result of a 2007 Supreme Court decision and after a thorough and transparent review of the soundest science available.' Steven J. Law, chief legal officer and general counsel of the chamber, said in a news release that the challenge would focus on 'the inadequacies of the process that EPA followed in triggering Clean Air Act regulation, and not on scientific issues related to climate change.'" 

Lobbyists Rush to Block EPA Action on Climate Change. By Marianne Lavelle, Center for Public Integrity, February 7, 2010. "The prospect of EPA greenhouse gas regulation looms large - mostly because agriculture and other interests haven't liked any of the climate bills so far on Capitol Hill. And now the lobbyists for those same interests are trying to block the EPA regulations as well... Overt and covert support for Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski's pending resolution to stop the EPA from regulation (and similar legislation introduced in the House) is but one prong of this assault. Opponents of federal curbs on fossil fuel emissions are also seeking allies in the states and in other federal agencies, while paving the way for court action to directly challenge EPA's initiative." 

Can EPA Handle the Job? By Bradford Plumer, NewRepublic, February 8, 2010. "EPA officials have stayed fairly tight-lipped on their exact plans going forward, but here's a sketch of how many experts think the agency would go about cracking down on greenhouse gases. In March, the EPA will propose its new fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks (the goal is an average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016). And as soon as that happens, the agency would be legally obligated to begin the process of regulating stationary sources, too -- though the precise timeline here is still fuzzy. The first wave of regulations would involve the EPA's 'Prevention of Significant Deterioration' program. Anyone who wanted to build a new power plant or factory-or upgrade an existing facility -- would need to apply for a state permit and adopt 'best available control technology' for greenhouse-gas emissions. The EPA hasn't specified what technologies that might entail, but it could mean anything from more efficient processes for cement kilns to forcing coal-fired plants to switch to cleaner natural gas. The appropriate technologies would be decided on a plant-by-plant basis. Since this would only apply to new plants -- or plants undergoing significant upgrades -- it wouldn't affect the vast majority of existing polluters... 

"If the EPA can survive that challenge, it would then have to figure out how to regulate existing polluters. This part is crucial: The original Clean Air Act ended up grandfathering in existing coal plants, which perversely gave utilities incentives to keep their oldest and dirtiest boilers chugging along for as long as possible. The agency has a variety of options here. According to Jason Burnett, a former EPA official who helped craft greenhouse-gas rules during the Bush years, one plausible scenario would see the agency setting pollution targets for different industrial sectors under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, the 'New Source Performance Standards' program. Cement kilns and nitric-acid plants would get regulated first, possibly as soon as this year. After that would come oil and gas refineries, and, later still, fossil-fuel power plants. These rules could involve anything from inflexible limits (i.e., kilns have to emit no more than a certain amount of carbon-dioxide per ton of cement produced) to a carbon-trading program, although the latter would be much dicier, legally speaking... In the coming months, many climate advocates may have to shift gears. Instead of talking about the EPA's authority as some terrifying prospect that only the passage of a cap-and-trade bill can stop, the EPA option could increasingly get framed as something worth defending in its own right. Especially since it may be one of the few viable options left for tackling climate change." 

Enviro Groups Target Sens Lincoln, Murkowski on Bid to Block EPA. By Anne C. Mulkern, Greenwire, February 13, 2010. "Environmentalists plan to erect a billboard targeting Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln for her support of Sen. Lisa Murkowski's effort to block U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Friends of the Earth and CREDO Action plan to erect a billboard in Little Rock saying Lincoln wants to gut the Clean Air Act. The activist groups are asking people to vote on the content of the 14-by-48-foot billboard, which the groups say will be seen by more than 50,000 Arkansans each day. Lincoln is one of three moderate Democrats who have backed Alaska Republican Murkowski's resolution, along with Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, in addition to 38 Republican co-sponsors, according to Murkowski's office. The resolution would require 51 votes to clear the chamber. 

"'Senator Lincoln has blatantly ignored Arkansans' health and welfare in doing corporate polluters' bidding and trying to roll back the Clean Air Act,' said Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica. 'This billboard will help hold her accountable.' Lincoln spokeswoman Katie Laning Niebaum denounced the planned billboard. 'These intentionally deceptive ads lead people to believe that Senator Lincoln's efforts would interfere with the enforcement of the Clean Air Act, which is not accurate,' Niebaum said. 'The Murkowski resolution maintains the Clean Air Act by preventing the EPA from moving forward with over-reaching regulations, beyond the intent of Congress, which could damage Arkansas's small business economy'... Environmentalists, meanwhile, continue to hammer Murkowski, launching a Web site called PolluterHarmony.com, a take-off on matchmaking site eHarmony.com." 

Energy Companies Still Pushing for Cap-and-Trade. By Timothy Gardner, Reuters, February 11, 2010. "The U.S. Senate's stalled climate bill is getting a last big push from an unlikely ally -- a group of energy companies who say a carbon market will help them get financing for the next generation of energy production. But intensive lobbying by these climate bill proponents -- including heavyweights like Duke Energy, Shell Oil Co and General Electric Co -- may not be enough to counter powerful opposition and get a bill passed before the U.S. mid-term elections in November. President Barack Obama says he still backs a climate bill but many have written off the chances of passing legislation with the most controversial provision: a market that aims to cut pollution by letting companies buy and trade permits to emit greenhouse gases... 

"Duke Energy Chief Executive Jim Rogers and Shell Oil Co President Marvin Odum met moderate lawmakers, seeking ways to push such a bill in the Senate that has made little progress... A cap-and-trade system would reward companies for adopting clean energy technologies like nuclear plants and burying carbon emissions from coal generators underground. Rogers said this would give investors confidence to finance new power plants. 'We have to retire or replace every plant by 2050,' he said. 'The sooner we get about the business of doing that, the better'... Odum said an emissions market would create hundreds of thousands of jobs as companies race to begin building a new energy system... A compromise bill being hashed out by Senators John Kerry, a Democrat, Lindsey Graham, a Republican, and Joe Lieberman, an independent, is not expected to be out before March. Lobbyists for companies that support a cap-and-trade system have taken heart in signals from the trio of senators, and in recent comments from President Obama, that a compromise could pick up votes. Rogers said the lobbyists are targeting 15 to 17 Democratic and eight to 10 Republican Senators to win votes." 

Rep. Moran Likely to Lead Panel that Funds Environmental Agencies. By Noelle Straub, Greenwire, February 10, 2010. "Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) is poised to take the chairmanship of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, as current Chairman Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) is expected to move over to the coveted Defense subpanel. The reshuffling comes after the death earlier this week of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) due to complications from gallbladder surgery. Dicks, who is the next most senior Democrat on the Defense Subcommittee, will 'likely succeed' his friend Murtha at that position, said his chief of staff George Behan... Moran will likely take over the subcommittee that shapes the budgets of the Interior Department, U.S. EPA and Forest Service if the decision is made by strict seniority, Behan added... The possibility of Moran as chairman drew praise from environmentalists."

International Climate News

Binding U.N. Agreements Unlikely in 2010. By Lisa Friedman, ClimateWire, February 8, 2010. "Washington's climate policy analysts from environmental groups are quietly abandoning -- at least temporarily -- the once sacrosanct notion that nations must agree to legally binding emission targets. Several experts with ties to the Obama administration either personally or through their organizations said in recent interviews they don't view a new global treaty as likely or even desirable by the time countries meet in December for the next U.N. climate summit in Cancun, Mexico. Action is the new buzzword, it seems. The climate conference in Copenhagen last year ended in chaos -- but still with promises from the world's major global warming polluters to slash emissions. Policy leaders now say they want negotiators to focus on achieving goals, not sparring over ideologically fraught legal language...  

"'Everybody's saying they want legally binding, but there's at least four or five mutually contradictory visions of what legally binding means,' said Alden Meyer, director of strategy at the Union of Concerned Scientists... But in Washington, many are now arguing that rather than spend more time dancing in that minefield, nations should focus on what really counts: reducing or scaling back the growth of global warming pollution. 'We may need to put off decisions on legally binding until the dynamics change, and there is both more agreement on the substance and more trust between the major countries in the negotiations,' Meyer said. So far, the Obama administration continues to declare support for a binding treaty, as long as nations like China and Brazil are held to the same legal standards. But the increasingly loud drumbeat from respected analysts could provide important cover for U.S. officials if America once again fails to bring a signed climate bill to the next U.N. summit." 

IPCC Deals with Mistakes in 2007 Report. By Seth Borenstein, AP, February 8, 2010. "The flaws -- and the erosion they've caused in public confidence -- have some scientists calling for drastic changes in how future United Nations climate reports are done. A push for reform being published in Thursday's issue of a prestigious scientific journal comes on top of a growing clamor for the resignation of the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The work of the climate change panel, or IPCC, is often portrayed as one massive tome. But it really is four separate reports on different aspects of global warming, written months apart by distinct groups of scientists. No errors have surfaced in the first and most well-known of the reports, which said the physics of a warming atmosphere and rising seas is man-made and incontrovertible. So far, four mistakes have been discovered in the second report, which attempts to translate what global warming might mean to daily lives around the world. 'A lot of stuff in there was just not very good.' said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the first report. 'A chronic problem is that on the whole area of impacts, getting into the realm of social science, it is a softer science. The facts are not as good.' 

"The second report includes chapters on each region, which governments want to be mostly written by local experts, some of whom may not have the science credentials of other report authors... Many IPCC scientists say it's impressive that so far only four errors have been found in 986 pages of the second report, with the overwhelming majority of the findings correct and well-supported. However, former IPCC Chairman Bob Watson said, 'We cannot take that attitude. Any mistakes do allow skeptics to have a field day and to use it to undermine public confidence, private sector confidence, government confidence in the IPCC.'" 

Rajendra Pachauri Raises More Eyebrows. By Jeremy Page, London Times, February 8, 2010. "The Indian head of the UN climate change panel, already under fire over errors in a key 2007 report, is raising eyebrows again after publishing a raunchy environmental novel and accepting help in promoting it from BP and the head of India's biggest gas producer." 

India's Roaring Economy Remains Hitched to Coal. By Gayathri Vaidyanathan, ClimateWire, February 4, 2010. "While environmental groups in developed nations talk of a coming world based on solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy, India's 8% economic growth rate is powered by coal. Its consumption is projected to increase by at least 400% by the year 2030, according to the government's 205 Integrated Energy Policy report. This means that in the next 20 years, India will extract, transport, import and burn coal at record rates. It could emit between 4 billion and 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year and approach the United States' current emission levels, according to the report. 'While others are worrying about global warming, India's energy elite fret mainly about how to secure enough coal,' David Victor, a professor at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego, recently wrote in the Boston Review [Living with Coal]. About 70% of India's electricity comes from coal-burning plants, and that fraction is likely to grow, according to Victor. At the moment, India's power supply is running about 12% behind demand." 

E.U.'s Free Emission Permits Set to Expire in 2013, Early Auctions to Hedge Price Volatility in Question. By Nina Chestney, Reuters, February 13, 2010. "The early auctioning of 2013 carbon permits in the European Union's emissions market is unlikely before 2012 as squabbles in the 27-nation bloc over the auctioning mechanism threaten to hinder plans. European Union officials are fine-tuning the rules for auctioning permits to emit carbon dioxide during the third phase (2013-2020) of the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). From 2013, utilities will pay for permits for each tonne of carbon dioxide they emit instead of receiving them for free. They are keen to get access to carbon permits called EU Allowances (EUAs) as early as 2011, so they can hedge forward power sales in advance... Several nations are divided over whether permits should be auctioned over an EU-wide platform or national systems. The EU Commission, supported by France and Italy, favors a centralized platform as the most cost-efficient and transparent method... 'The best way to ensure one single, predictable price is to have a centralized system. We cannot accept a situation where you have a centralized platform with countries such as Britain opting out,' said an Italian government official... Britain and Germany, which already run their own regular auctions, favor national systems and have lobbied support from Poland and Spain. Nations are allowed to keep the proceeds from auctions but some are reluctant to hand over control to a central body." 

Fraud Besets E.U. Carbon Trading System. By James Kanter, NYTimes, February 8, 2010. "Carbon Markets have had a rocky ride since trading began five years ago in the European Union. The latest bump came last month, when swindlers used faked e-mail messages to obtain access codes for individual accounts on national registries that make up the bloc's Emission Trading System. Traders and companies who fell for the ploy on Jan. 28 were directed to a rogue Web site and invited to enter their security codes -- a practice known as 'phishing' in the jargon of the Internet. The swindlers used the stolen codes to gain access to electronic certificates that represent quantities of greenhouse gases. They then sold the certificates through trading accounts registered in Denmark and Britain. The attack on the German national registry, which appears to have been among the hardest hit, could have netted the swindlers as much as $4 million... Matthew Cowie, a carbon markets expert at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a research company, said the attack highlighted how 'people are recognizing that there are increasingly large amounts of money in this market and that these certificates represent real assets.' 

"Other analysts said the attack had little to do with the underlying factors that will determine the future of carbon trading. According to Abyd Karmali, the global head of carbon markets for Bank of America Merrill Lynch, the biggest obstacle to the expansion of trading systems globally is the willingness of politicians to take the time to explain to voters that it will cost far less to curb climate change now than to deal with the problem later. Mr. Karmali acknowledged there was growing skepticism in the United States about carbon trading. But he said chances were still good that the United States would adopt such a system in the coming years. The participation of the United States and other major economies like Japan would create a global market that could be worth up to $3 trillion annually by 2020, compared with its current annual value of $130 billion, he said. Even the toughest critics of emissions markets agreed that the cyberattack was the least of their worries." 

Canada to Protect Sprawling Boreal Area in Labrador. By Nathanial Gronewald, Greenwire, February 8, 2010. "Canada will establish North America's newest national park in an isolated corner of Labrador, the government announced February 5. At a press conference in the mining community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Canada's environment minister and top officials from the federal government and province of Newfoundland and Labrador announced the planned Mealy Mountains National Park. The areas includes boreal forest, bogs and tundra and is home to a variety of wildlife, including black bear, moose, red fox and an endangered herd of caribou. The park will be bigger than Yosemite and Yellowstone National Parks combined, with about 3,800 square miles -- 2.65 million acres -- of land set aside. 'It is fitting that we are working to establish a national park reserve to protect this spectacular boreal landscape for all time, for all Canadians,' the Canadian environment minister, Jim Prentice, told reporters. Newfoundland and Labrador's government also says it will establish a new provincial park adjacent to Mealy Mountains to protect an important waterway there. Both governments also promised to consult closely with aboriginal communities as they move to establish the parks." 

Vancouver Olympic Organizers Given a 'Bronze Medal' for Green Efforts. By Janet Guttsman, Reuters, February 11, 2010. "Sites for Vancouver's Winter Olympics boast low-flow toilets that use rainwater to flush, energy efficient grass-clad roofs and separate bins for compostable waste, setting them on course to meet ambitious environmental targets. But critics are giving the Games a bronze medal at best, and that was before the officials started airlifting snow to a rained-out ski- and snowboard hill just outside a snowless Vancouver... A sparkling new Canada Line monorail whisks passengers from Vancouver Airport to downtown in a matter of minutes, but Organizers opted to double to the size of the Sea to Sky highway linking Vancouver with the Alpine center at Whistler rather than trying to build a train."

The Obama Administration

NOAA to Offer New Online Service on Climate Information. By Juliet Eilperin, WashPost, February 9, 2010. "The Obama administration proposed a new climate service on Monday that would provide Americans with predictions on how global warming will affect everything from drought to sea levels. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Service, modeled loosely on the 140-year-old National Weather Service, would provide forecasts to farmers, regional water managers and businesses affected by changing climate conditions. The move is essentially a reorganization of NOAA, and would bring the agency's climate research arm together with its more consumer-oriented services. It would not come with a boost in funding. A Web portal launched February 8 at www.climate.gov provides a single entry point to NOAA's climate information, data, products and services...  

"NOAA, along with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, ranks as one of the federal government's key agencies for monitoring the climate and conducting climate research. 'We currently respond to millions of annual requests for climate information, and we expect those requests to grow exponentially,' said NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco in an interview, adding that in light of recent scientific advances, the models will continue to improve, and we will be able to provide more and more information.' Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in an interview that the service would be able to provide advice on such diverse topics as where ski operators might want to refocus their activities in light of changing snowfall patterns and which farm crops will need increased irrigation."  

Obama's Ag Policies Trying to Have it Both Ways. By Marion Burros, Politico, February 13, 2010. "Longtime food policy observers are having a difficult time squaring the Department of Agriculture's entrenched preference for high-tech industrial agriculture that emphasizes biotechnology and genetically engineered crops with its newfound interest in helping those who favor low-tech ag: small farmers, advocates of organic and local food and champions of sustainability. Margaret Mellon, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, describes the USDA as schizophrenic. 'It wants to promote both organic and sustainable local,' she said. 'It is also committed to promotion of biotech here and around the world. So far, there has not been collision between those two priorities, but I'm not sure that situation will last much longer.' When former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack was tapped as agriculture secretary by President Barack Obama, the presumption was that he would lean toward an emphasis on biotech. After all, Vilsack was once named governor of the year by the Biotechnology Industry Organization. 

"But Vilsack threw the agriculture community a curveball by naming as his deputy Kathleen Merrigan, an outspoken advocate for farm policies that favor conservation and sustainable land use. She drafted the 1990 act that produced federal organic standards. Yet, in an interview shortly after taking his new post, Vilsack didn't back away from the importance of agribusiness and genetically modified crops in feeding the increasing world population. 'You don't work around agribusiness,' he said. 'You work with it.' The competing policy strands have created some confusion among USDA watchers. Still, Carol Tucker Foreman, a former assistant secretary of agriculture and now director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America, says that one thing is certain: The culture of the department is changing. 'I've never seen conversations before about family farms and really small operations and local agriculture,' she said." 

Salazar Meets with Tribes on Nantucket Sound Over Wind Farm. By Beth Daley, BGlobe, February 3, 2010. "With the wind barely blowing yesterday, the conditions were hardly ideal for talking about plopping a 130-turbine wind farm about 5 miles off Cape Cod. Yet there was US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the man deciding the fate of the controversial wind farm, sitting on the bridge of a Coast Guard vessel and peering out across the Sound with binoculars a few hours after meeting with Native Americans opposed to the Cape Wind project. 'Very meaningful,' said Salazar about his visit that included a private sunrise meeting with the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe on a Cape Cod beach, and a later discussion with the Aquinnah Wampanoag tribe on Martha's Vineyard. Standing on the deck of the Ida Lewis during a boat tour of the proposed wind farm's footprint, he said he came to Cape Cod and the Islands as a sign of respect to the Wampanoag tribes' deep reverence for the water body.  

"Salazar announced no conclusions on February 2 about the advisability of locating the wind farm in the scenic Sound, but his visit to the Wampanoag and the area underscores just how high-stakes the Cape Wind farm has become to the Obama administration, which is hoping to accelerate renewable energy efforts and show the world it is serious about fighting manmade climate change. If completed, the project's developers say it will supply, on average, the equivalent of 75% of the energy needs of Cape Cod and the Islands. For opponents and supporters of the wind farm, the day appeared as a kind of last stand after a nine-year permitting saga. About 60 demonstrators waved signs for and against the project as Salazar's boat docked an hour late in Woods Hole... Salazar's visit comes after he summoned parties involved in the Native American and Cape Wind dispute to Washington, D.C., last month and gave them until March 1 to hammer out an agreement."

Wind, Solar, Efficiency

L.A. Eyes Dried Lake Bed for Huge Solar Project. By Phil Wilson, LATimes, February 2, 2010. "First it was silver ore that streamed to Los Angeles from the rim of the Owens Valley, then the water from the valley floor. Now, L.A. has come back for the sunshine. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the agency responsible for turning Owens Lake into a dusty salt flat and snatching up nearly every acre from Lone Pine to Bishop, has its sights on transforming the Owens Valley [some 200 miles north of Los Angeles] into one of largest sources of solar power in America. Interim DWP Chief S. David Freeman says the valley on the dry side of the Sierra Nevada is blessed with the 'best sun in the country.' He envisions a gigantic solar array that could cover 80 square miles of dry lake bed and nearby flatlands, a sea of photovoltaic cells roughly the size of Cleveland that would generate up to 10% of all the power produced in California while simultaneously calming the region's fierce dust storms. Owens Valley residents crowded into a Methodist church recently to hear Freeman's pitch. Though intrigued by the idea of turning the scarred earth at Owens Lake into a source of clean energy and local jobs, many still chafed at L.A.'s near feudal reign over the valley."

German Cuts is Feed-In Tariffs Postponed. Reuters, February 9, 2010. "Germany's ruling coalition has agreed to delay cuts in solar power incentives by two months, parliamentary officials said on Tuesday, easing pressure on solar companies which will have more time to sell components. Support for new rooftop solar installations will be cut by 16 percent from June 1, said Hans-Peter Friedrich, parliamentary group leader for the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU). The original plan was to introduce the cuts on April 1... Critics of the cuts, including members of Germany's ruling parties, have said they could harm the expansion of photovoltaic technology in the world's largest solar market. About half of the world's solar electricity is produced in Germany." 

Poland Continues Aggressive Expansion of Wind Power. By Patryk Wasilewski, Reuters, February 8, 2010. "Poland will add 200-300 megawatts of wind power in 2010, roughly the same as 275 megawatts added last year... The total installed power out of wind-farms reached 724 megawatts at end-2009. 'Acceleration in the process of building the farms depends on whether conditions for such investments improve,' said Jacek Tukaj, a specialist at Polish Wind Energy Association. Tukaj added the main stumbling blocks for faster development of the wind-based clean energy include poor state of the national power grid and unclear environment regulations delaying investment decisions. Poland's economy ministry estimates renewable energy sources will generate 9.1% of the country's usage by end-2010. At present, renewables account for some 7% of Polish power production. Poland depends in over 90% on highly-polluting coal to generate its energy, but vows to get over 15% out of renewable sources by 2020." 

Scotland on Target for 31% Wind-Powered Electricity by 2011. By Nina Sovich, Reuters, February 8, 2010. "Scotland is on track to beat its target to get 31% of its electricity from renewables by 2011 and aims to one day generate all its power from green energies, the country's First Minister, said Alex Salmond, who heads the Scottish government and the National Party... Scotland will also likely meet its target of deriving 50 percent of its electricity consumption from renewables by 2020 and become the 'green energy powerhouse of Europe,' he said. Salmond, who is a proponent of Scottish independence from the United Kingdom, said his party was committed to renewable energy as a way to ensure the country's energy security. Scotland will also have to cope in the coming decades with the maturing of North Sea oil and gas reserves, which could hurt local employment. To offset such job losses, Salmond is betting on the renewable energy sector." 

Utah Company Seek to Store Renewable Energy with Underground Compressed Air. By Paul Foy, AP, February 13, 2010. "A Utah company plans to dig a series of underground caverns that it hopes to one day fill with compressed air, releasing it to generate electricity by turning a turbine and solving one of the most vexing problems facing the clean-energy industry -- how to store power. Under a barren patch of Utah desert, a private-equity group is bankrolling the project to hollow out a series of energy-storage vaults from a massive salt deposit a mile underground. It promises to make a perfect repository for storing energy and, in effect, creating a giant subterranean battery. Energy storage is catching on as a way to make wind and solar power more useful... 'In terms of storing bulk energy -- lots of megawatt-hours -- compressed air is cheaper than anything else out there,' said Paul Denholm, lead analyst for energy storage at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab [nrel.gov] in Boulder, Colo." 

Californian Homeowners Relying Increasingly on Small Scale Alternatives: Wind, Geothermal and Solar. By Chip Jacobs, LATimes, February 7, 2010. "Not long ago, people who wanted to generate their own green energy at home had to content themselves with rooftop solar panels. But new technologies -- and hefty government subsidies -- are now allowing homeowners to tap the wind, the Earth and other renewable sources in their own backyards... Here's a look at three technologies that some California residents are using now to cut utility costs while turning their homes into truly green houses... 1) Roughly 10,500 small turbines were sold to homes, farms and businesses nationwide in 2008... 2) Thousands of homeowners in the eastern U.S. already rely on geothermal heat pumps. People who live in warmer Sun Belt states could especially benefit from them...3) California leads the nation in using photovoltaic panels to generate clean electricity. A cheaper and more practical way to harness the sun's energy is for heating water. Solar water heaters typically require just a few small rooftop panels; they work even in chilly Northern climates. Yet the technology is little used in California, despite its abundant sunshine."

Fossil Fuels, Biofuels, Nuclear

Obama's Nuclear Giveaway. By Kate Sheppard, Mother Jones, February 4, 2010. "The the Obama administration's 2011 budget proposes tripling the loan guarantee program -- from the $18.5 billion that Congress has already approved to $54.5 billion. The program's expansion is just one of several signs that the Obama administration is throwing its muscle behind the nuclear industry's push for a massive expansion... In his State of the Union address Obama argued that creating new clean energy jobs 'means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.' But as Mother Jones has reported, there will be no nuclear renaissance unless the US taxpayer covers the tab. While the country's 104 nuclear power plants currently produce nearly 20 percent of American electricity, growth has flatlined in the past three decades. Even as public opinion toward nuclear power has warmed, projected construction costs for new plants have soared, with a single reactor now estimated to cost as much as $12 billion. In fact, the outlook for nuclear plants looks so dire that even Wall Street banks have balked at financing them unless the government underwrites the deal. Of course, that means the government would also assume almost all the risk... With the prospects for cap-and-trade legislation looking increasingly precarious, Democrats are hoping to entice Republicans with major support for nuclear power...  

"It's also worth remembering that the Obama camp has long-standing ties to the nuclear industry. As a senator, Obama wrote an unsuccessful bill that would have required nuclear power plant owners to notify state and local authorities of small radiation leaks -- but then watered down the legislation significantly at the industry's behest. And nuclear interests have been keen boosters of his political career: Executives and employees of Exelon, the Illinois-based utility that produces approximately 20% of the country's nuclear power, donated nearly $210,000 to Obama's presidential campaign, according to CQ Moneyline. In fact, Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, helped broker the merger of two utiltilies to form Exelon in 2000 when working as an investment banker at Wasserstein Perella & Co." 

Tritium Leaks Undermine Confidence in Nuclear Reactors. By Matthew L. Wald, NYTimes, February 10, 2010. "Tritium leaks like the one that threatens the future of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant are undermining confidence in other reactors around the country, three experts nominated by President Obama to join the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said February 9 at their confirmation hearing. The leaks by themselves do not appear to have had any impact on public health, one of the three, William D. Magwood IV, told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. 'The point is not that it's not hurting anyone,' he said. 'The point is it's showing you don't have your act together'... Another nominee, William Charles Ostendorff, said that one of the biggest problems facing the regulatory commission would be to balance oversight of the licensing of new reactors and of the safe operation of older, existing plants with 'piping concerns' like the leaks. The industry hopes to break ground soon on new plants soon, for the first time in 30 years, but opponents say tritium leaks show the industry is not to be trusted. 

"The leaks came to light only because of a nationwide effort that the nuclear industry began in May 2006 to grapple with the issue after the discovery of leaks at two sites in Illinois and one in New York. Now industry officials say that perhaps a third of the reactors nationwide have had such leaks. Twelve sites have filed official reports since 2003, and more may be discovered soon. A spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Scott Burnell, said that nearly all of them are vulnerable... The Environmental Protection Agency sets a standard for how much tritium is allowed in drinking water. But at Vermont Yankee and other places, the tritium has not been found in drinking water but in groundwater. The releases have so far not put any plant in violation of its radiation discharge limits." 

Coal Ad Blitz Helping to Sell Coal in D.C.. By Anne C. Mulkern, Greenwire, February 8, 2010. "An advertising campaign that previously pushed the phrase 'clean coal' launches new spots this week focused on jobs and low-cost power, the latest offering in a three-year, nearly $120 million effort to sell Congress and the White House on coal's future. Increasingly, there are signs that it is working. Coal companies and utilities that use coal in the past year have won a number of gains. Top policymakers, including President Obama, are echoing a key message from the ads, that technology in the future could reduce coal's carbon pollution and keep coal a part of the energy mix." 

Virginia's Top Official Pushing for Offshore Drilling. By Richard Simon, LA Times, February 8, 2010. "Virginia could become the first state on the Eastern Seaboard to open its coast to energy exploration since a decades-old federal drilling ban expired more than a year ago. The new Republican governor, Robert McDonnell, pledged to make Virginia the 'energy capital of the East Coast' at his swearing-in last month. The state's Democratic senators, Jim Webb and Mark R. Warner, are also urging the Obama administration to begin selling leases next year for drilling 50 miles offshore... 'Virginia is eager to get started,' McDonnell said in a letter to the Department of the Interior, portraying the drilling as a way to aid economic recovery and generate billions of dollars for the financially strapped state, including money for transportation improvements. 'We may have this potential bank account sitting out there,' said Gerry Scimeca, an aide to state Delegate Ron A. Villanueva, a Republican and the sponsor of a pro-drilling resolution approved Wednesday by the Virginia General Assembly on a 69-28 vote. The lease sale would be the first on the Atlantic coast since 1983. New drilling has been prohibited in much of the nation's coastal waters since the 1980s, largely in response to a devastating 1969 oil spill in California, off Santa Barbara. Congress let the ban lapse in late 2008 as high gasoline prices became a hot political issue."

Senate Jobs Bill to Revive U.S. Biodiesel Tax Credit. Reuters, February 10, 2010. "A U.S. jobs-creation bill under development in the Senate would revive the $1 a gallon biodiesel tax credit for this year, according to a draft of the bill released on February 10. The tax credit expired at the end of 2009. Backers say it aided the growth of biodiesel, made primarily from soybean oil. A farm group, the American Soybean Association, would like a multiyear extension. Some 2.2 billion lbs, or 11%, of U.S. soybean oil production would be devoted to biodiesel this marketing year, according to the latest U.S. Agriculture Department data. It takes 7.5 lbs of soybean oil to make a gallon of biodiesel... According to a draft, the bill would extend through 2010 a 50-cent a gallon tax credit for alternative fuels and alternative fuel mixtures. The extension would deny a tax break to fuels derived from making pulp or paper -- so-called black liquor."

Business

Has U.S. Already Lost the Green-Tech Race? By Christina Larson, YaleEnviro360, February 12, 2010. "China is becoming the wind-turbine [and solar panel] factory to the world for much the same reasons it has long been the TV and t-shirt factory to the world: lower wages, lower land prices, fewer regulatory and other requirements, etc. This isn't particularly surprising, and it shouldn't be seen as a reversal of the status quo... Most of the green manufacturing jobs that the U.S. stands to 'lose' haven't in fact been created yet; China will gain thousands of new jobs, but not necessarily at America's expense. Moreover, the United States will still gain many new green-collar jobs, in installation and maintenance, which can only be locally based, as well as sales teams, conference planners, and other positions already arising to support the growing green-tech field...

"Besides green-tech hardware, there's also the question of the technology that enables it. Who will be responsible for the innovation that drives the low-carbon future? At present, America still has significant advantages -- including the world's leading university system and the entrepreneurial culture and venture-capital spigots of technology hubs, particularly Silicon Valley... Even as China's solar panel exports grow, it continues to purchase clean locomotives from an American company, GE. Germany has developed world-class 'green' metro cars, with China being a top customer. And French companies are among the world's top innovators in water solutions. In other words, green-tech encompasses a lot more than windmills and solar panels -- and progress in developing it can be a two-way street." 

Prius Adds to Toyota's Woes. By Micheline Maynard, NYTimes, February 3, 2010. "The hybrid-electric Prius has long been Toyota's 'green car,' the symbol of the automaker's engineering prowess and its big bet on the kind of car consumers will want to buy for decades to come. But on Wednesday, the Prius was drawn into the mounting crisis for Toyota, as Japanese officials ordered the company to investigate problems with the brakes on the 2010 model... Toyota has sold 1.2 million Priuses worldwide since 1997, about half in the United States. Last year, it was Toyota's third-best-selling American car, behind the Camry and the Corolla... Toyota received thousands of advance orders for the new Prius went it went on sale in Japan last May. Federal safety officials there received their first complaint about brakes on the car two months later. The company said that it had received 77 reports of braking problems related to the newest Prius model... In addition, in the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported at least 136 complaints involving the brakes on the 2010 Prius. 

"The 2010 Prius has a new type of regenerative brake system different from the ones used in previous years' models. With regenerative braking, energy from the wheels is used to help recharge the car's battery. However, the Prius and other hybrid models also rely on complex electronic systems that combine regenerative braking with conventional brake pads, so that the battery can absorb as much energy as possible while the pads do most of the work of stopping the car. Given the Toyota recalls, questions have come from many quarters about those electronic systems. The company has emphatically denied that electronic systems are responsible for complaints of stuck pedals on eight other models, which do not include the Prius." 

French Nuclear Giant Buys Californian Solar Startup. By Michael Burnham, Greenwire, February 9, 2010. "The French energy company Arevais buying Ausra, a California solar-power startup backed by high-profile venture capitalists. Perhaps best known for its nuclear power plants, Paris-based Areva has branched out in recent years into designing and building wind farms and biomass power plants. The Ausra acquisition, which is slated to close in the next few months, would form the backbone of Areva's new solar electricity business. The companies did not disclose financial terms of the deal. Mountain View, Calif.-based Ausra makes and sells concentrated solar power systems that use curved mirrors to focus sunlight onto water-filled tubes to produce steam for electric utilities and industrial customers. Areva plans to build -- but not necessarily own and operate -- power plants using the solar-thermal technology... Areva is also looking to gain a foothold in the U.S. wind and biomass power sectors."

Regional Initiatives

Utah House Formally Questions Climate Change. By Robert Gehrke, SaltLakeTrib, February 9, 2010. "The House adopted a sternly worded resolution declaring the body's deep skepticism over current climate science and called for the federal government to halt carbon dioxide reduction programs. Rep. Kerry Gibson said that by pursuing cap-and-trade policies, Washington is engaging on a path that could destroy Utah's way of life. 'I'm afraid of what could happen to our economy, to our rural life, to our agriculture, if such a detrimental policy continues to be pursued for political reasons,' said the Ogden Republican. He said there is mounting evidence that humans can't influence their environment and the costs of enacting climate change policies could be staggering. The House resolution is nonbinding and has no legal impact beyond expressing the sentiment of the Legislature. It passed the body by a 56-17 vote and now goes to the Senate. The resolution was amended to tone down some of the incendiary language, specifically deleting references to a 'climate data conspiracy' and a climate change 'gravy train.'"  

Ballot Drive to Suspend California Climate Law May be Running Out of Steam. By Colin Sullivan, ClimateWire, February 11, 2010. "An election-year push to suspend California's climate change law appears to be struggling amid rumors that supporters are having trouble raising enough money to gather the signatures needed [433,000 by April 16] to place the issue on the November ballot... But many close to the process say the effort has flagged in recent weeks and has yet to begin gathering signatures with about two months left until the deadline... Further complicating the drive was a decision last week by Attorney General Jerry Brown, the leading Democratic candidate to be the next governor, to revise the ballot initiativeto reflect his interpretation of its intent... The measure [was filed] with the attorney general's office as the 'California Jobs Initiative,' but Brown, who has the authority to rename ballot measures, decided to go his own way. Brown's revised title is this: 'Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year.' That means any attempt to gather signatures would have to present that mouthful to prospective signers. The drafters of the measure have the right to sue Brown to change the title, but that would create further delays while attorneys battle it out in court." 

California May Reverse Carbon Credit Provision which Encourages Clearcutting. Press Release,Center for Biological Diversity, February 12, 2010. "In response to a formal legal letter filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, the California Air Resources Board has proposed to withdraw its adoption of a 'Forest Project Protocol' that would have allowed logging companies to earn valuable carbon credits for clearcutting projects [planting monoculture wood lots in place of forests] and other destructive practices. At its February 25 meeting, the Board will consider reversing its adoption of the protocol pending a legally required review of environmental impacts to forests and the climate... In September 2009, the Air Resources Board adopted an updated version of the protocol that would grant carbon credits to damaging forest-management projects. The Board's adoption of the protocol as a methodology for carbon accounting was the first step toward allowing forest landowners to accumulate credits for the CO2 stored in trees and forest products. Polluters would have been able to buy those credits instead of reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions under AB 32, California's global warming law, or other laws requiring mitigation of climate change impacts. In November, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a formal letter demanding that the Board rescind its adoption of the protocol."

Voices, Action

The Global Warming Snow Job. Editorial, Washington Times, February 11, 2010. "Record snowfall illustrates the obvious: The global warming fraud is without equal in modern science. The fundamental problems exposed about climate-change theory undermine the very basis of scientific inquiry. Huge numbers of researchers refuse to provide their data to other scientists. Some referenced data is found not to have existed. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report that global warming activists continually cite invented a large number of purported facts... Getting facts wrong and citing dubious sources isn't the worst of it. Rajendra K. Pachauri, the U.N.'s climate chief, remained silent when he knew information was false and denied he had been aware of the Himalayan glaciers error before the recent climate-change summit in Copenhagen, which made a big deal about this nonexistent crisis... Man-made global warming theory isn't backed up by science; it's a hoax. The fact that the world has been asked to spend tens of trillions of dollars on global warming solutions without being able to evaluate the data upon which the claims were made should have been the first warning that something was seriously wrong. The public and world leaders have been sold expensive snake oil by charlatans like Mr. Pachauri. It's time to admit it's all baloney and move on." 

Sarah Palin: 'Climate Change is a Bunch of Snake Oil Science'. By Judy Lin, AP, February 8, 2010. "Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called studies supporting global climate change a 'bunch of snake oil science' Monday during a rare appearance in California, a state that has been at the forefront of environmental regulations. Palin spoke before the Sierra Cascade Logging Conference in Redding, a town of 90,000 about 160 miles north of the state capital. The media were barred from the event, but The Associated Press bought a $74 ticket to attend. Palin said California's heavy regulatory environment makes it difficult for businesses to succeed, a point that is shared by many business leaders in the state... Her comments were well-received by the audience members, many of whom brought copies of her book, Going Rogue, in hopes of getting Palin's signature. A second Palin speech in Redding scheduled for the evening was sold out... Palin said she believes there's a way to harvest timber without damaging the environment but has grown frustrated by environmental activists who want to 'lock up the land'... She defended herself as a conservationist. 'We really do love our trees,' Palin said. 'I named my daughter Willow. Isn't that granola enough for them?'"  

McCain Back Peddles with Increasing Persistence. By Darren Samuelsohn, ClimateWire, February 10, 2010, "Sen. John McCain once led the global warming debate on Capitol Hill, pledging to force repeated floor votes on cap-and-trade legislation until it passed... But McCain has gone on hiatus from the issue since losing the presidential election to Barack Obama. And he is likely to keep his distance even more over the next six months due to a primary challenge from a conservative former congressman that threatens to end his Senate career after four terms... McCain is not the only one-time cap-and-trade supporter facing conservative pressures this election year. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) has been distancing himself from past global warming efforts during his Senate primary campaign against former state House Speaker Marco Rubio. And Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) walked away from his vote last June on the House-passed climate bill to help sew up the GOP nomination for Obama's old Senate seat.  

"But McCain stands out like few others given his past advocacy for climate legislation, including a brutal GOP presidential primary season in 2007 and 2008 when several more conservative candidates trashed his efforts (Greenwire, Jan. 28, 2008)... Initially, Hayworth had McCain in his sights. A November 2009 telephone poll by Rasmussen had McCain holding a slight 45-43 edge. But a Jan. 20 survey had McCain comfortably ahead of Hayworth, 53-31. The pollsters said their results came just after former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's decision to campaign for her former White House running mate."

Join the Climate Trail. By Naomi Klein, Bill McKibben, Terry Tempest Williams, and Dr. James Hansen, Common Dreams, February 8, 2010. "The epic fight to ward off global warming and transform the energy system that is at the core of our planet's economy takes many forms: huge global days of action, giant international conferences like the one that just failed in Copenhagen, small gestures in the homes of countless people. But there are a few signal moments, and one comes next month, when the federal government puts Tim DeChristopher on trial in Salt Lake City. Tim -- 'Bidder 70' --pulled off one of the most creative protests against our runaway energy policy in years: he bid for the oil and gas leases on several parcels of federal land even though he had no money to pay for them, thus upending the auction. The government calls that 'violating the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act' and thinks he should spend ten years in jail for the crime; we call it a noble act, a profound gesture made on behalf of all of us and of the future...  

"Local supporters are making plans for how to mark the three-day proceedings. But they are asking people around the country to flood into Salt Lake City in mid-March. If you come, there will be ample opportunity for both legal protest and civil disobedience... You can get the most up-to-date news at Climate Trial... This kind of trial is nothing but intimidation--and the best answers to intimidation are joy and resolve. That's what we'll need in Utah. We know it's short notice. Some of us won't be able to make it to Utah because we have other commitments or are limiting travel, and if you're in the same situation, climatetrial.com will also have details of solidarity actions in other parts of the country. If you can contribute money to help make the week's events possible, click here. But more than your money we need your body, your brains, and your heart. In a landscape of little water, where redrock canyons rise upward like praying hands, we can offer our solidarity to the wild: wild lands and wild hearts. Tim DeChristopher deserves and needs our physical and spiritual support in the name of a just and vibrant community."Naomi Klein, author of the international bestseller "The Shock Doctrine," Terry Tempest Williams, world renowned wildlife author, Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org and author of "The End Of Nature," and Dr. James Hansen, author of "Storms of my Grandchildren," and who is regarded as the world's leading climatologist.

The Climate Crisis Coalition 

The Weekly Edition
Climate Crisis Coalition
Tuesday, February 2, 2010

The Obama Administration

Obama's Nuclear Loan Guarantee Plan Draws Broad Opposition. By Wendy Koch, USA Today, February 1, 2010. "A campaign is already underway to oppose the tripling of loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants, included in President Obama's 2011 budget unveiled on Monday. A bevy of environmental, taxpayer and scientific groups -- plus a scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation -- are criticizing Obama's proposal to increase loan guarantees for new nuclear plants from $18.5 billion to $54.5 billion. The guarantees could bolster GOP support for his bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which passed the House of Representatives but is pending in the Senate. In a letter to Obama, four groups - the National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the George Marshall Institute and the Non-Proliferation Education Center -- oppose an expansion of loan guarantees for new nuclear plants: 'With hundreds of billions in bailouts already on the shoulders of U.S. taxpayers, the country cannot afford to move forward with a program that could easily become the black hole for hundreds of billions more.'" 

Chu Announces Commission on Nuclear Waste. Press Release, U.S. DOE, January 29, 2010. "As part of the Obama Administration's commitment to restarting America's nuclear industry, U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu on January 29 announced the formation of a Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future to provide recommendations for developing a safe, long-term solution to managing the Nation's used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The Commission is being co-chaired by former Congressman Lee Hamilton and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. In light of the Administration's decision not to proceed with the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, President Obama has directed Secretary Chu to establish the Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The Commission will provide advice and make recommendations on issues including alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste."  

White House Budget Would Kill Tax Breaks for Oil, Gas and Coal Industries. By Ben Geman, The Hill, February 1, 2010. "The White House calls for the end of nearly $40 billion in tax beaks for oil, gas and coal companies in its budget proposal released on Monday. The tax effort is sure to prompt outcry from industry groups, which have long argued that ending the subsidies will stymie investments in domestic energy production. The fiscal year 2011 budget plan calls for repealing $38.8 billion worth of tax breaks for oil, natural gas and coal companies over a decade, according to the White House. President Barack Obama's first budget plan a year ago called for cutting $31.5 billion in oil and gas industry incentives, including a repeal of the industry's ability to claim a lucrative domestic manufacturing tax break. Congress did not act on the proposals, which are opposed by a mix of Republicans and Democrats representing oil and gas-producing states. The call for ending the tax breaks comes after the White House signaled concessions to the oil and nuclear lobbies -- and their Capitol Hill allies -- in an effort to advance a bipartisan climate and energy bill." 

In State of the Union Speech Obama Focuses on Nukes, Offshore Drilling and Biofuels. Commentary by David Roberts, Grist, January 28, 2009. "On the subjects of climate and energy, he began well, introducing the eminently sensible notion that the U.S. needs to get cracking on creating clean energy jobs lest we have our lunch eaten by China, Germany, and India. 'I do not accept second place for the United States of America,' he thundered. Well good then! What does that mean? This was the opportunity. There are thousands of stories he could have told: about the burgeoning interest in energy efficiency and building retrofits,  the cheapest and most labor-intensive way to reduce emissions;  the astoundingly fast spread of distributed energy, driven by innovative financing models; the rapid growth and falling costs of wind and solar thermal power; the spread of bright green, low-carbon, walkable cities, where people benefit by living more sustainable lives. There are so many fascinating, inspiring, untold stories around energy right now. This was a real chance to open the public's eyes to the amazing revolution happening around them -- a revolution that can benefit them, employ them, and inspire them. Instead 'what it means' was, in order: nukes, offshore oil and gas drilling, biofuels, 'clean coal,' and ... well, that's it. That's right, in listing what 'clean energy' means the president did not mention renewable energy. That's just stunning. It's 2010 and renewable energy isn't even an afterthought?

"There were a few bright moments. First, the focus on clean energy jobs and 21st century competition is good, even if filled it out with 19th century energy sources that don't actually create many jobs. It's good that Obama is opening up an ideological space for non-greens to get excited about clean energy: 'the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.' Perfect line... The speech really caught fire toward the end, when he left behind substance and started talking process. I loved that he called out Republicans: 'Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can.' I loved that he called out Democrats: 'we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.' I love the rhetoric of leadership, of seizing history, of tackling big problems and accomplishing big things... But, he's got to put some cards on the table, get in the mix, risk losing a little bit of his cool and composure. Otherwise he runs the danger of having his legacy be little more than vast and unrealized hopes." Video, 70 min.  

Obama Sets Aside Curbing Greenhouse Gases in Talk with House Republicans. By Ben Geman, The Hill, January 29, 2010. "President Barack Obama avoided talking about mandatory greenhouse gas curbs that are deeply unpopular within the GOP caucus Friday at the House Republican retreat. Instead, Obama emphasized his support for 'clean coal' and nuclear power, issues more popular with the GOP, in talking about climate change legislation. Obama, echoing his State of the Union speech, is emphasizing common ground with Republicans as he seeks a bipartisan climate and energy deal that's an iffy election-year proposition. But in doing so, Obama and his advisers appear to be underplaying their support for cap-and-trade proposals that require reduction of emissions linked to global warming." Video, 86 min. Transcript. 

SEC Votes for More Disclosure About Climate Risks. By Siobhan Hughes, DowJones, January 27,2010. "A divided U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday voted to encourage companies to disclose the effects of climate change on their business, bringing a partisan debate over global warming into a new arena. Democrats and Republicans split over approving the guidance in a 3-2 vote. Democrats portrayed the action as clarifying existing disclosure requirements... 'We are not opining on whether the world's climate is changing, at what pace it might be changing or due to what causes,' SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro said. But she said that the guidance 'will help to ensure that our disclosure rules are consistently applied, regardless of the political sensitivity of the issue at hand, so that investors get reliable information'... 'I can only conclude that the purpose of the release is to place the imprimatur of the commission on the agenda of the social environmental policy lobby, an agenda that falls outside of our expertise and beyond our fundamental mission of investor protection,' said Kathy Casey, a Republican commissioner."

President Obama Sets Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target for Federal Operations. Press Release, White House, January 29, 2010. "President Barack Obama today announced on Friday that the Federal Government will reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 28% by 2020.  Reducing and reporting GHG pollution, as called for in Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability, will ensure that the Federal Government leads by example in building the clean energy economy. Actions taken under this Executive Order will spur clean energy investments that create new private-sector jobs, drive long-term savings, build local market capacity, and foster innovation and entrepreneurship in clean energy industries. As the single largest energy consumer in the U.S. economy, the Federal Government spent more than $24.5 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 alone. Achieving the Federal GHG pollution reduction target will reduce Federal energy use by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205 million barrels of oil, and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year. This is also equivalent to a cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020... As a next step, the Office of Management and Budget will validate and score each agency's sustainability plan, assuring a long-term return on investment to the American taxpayer. To ensure accountability, annual progress will be measured and reported online to the public." 

U.S. Submits Pledge to Reduce Emissions by 17% by 2020. By Juliet Eilperin, WashPost, January 29, 2010. "The United States pledged Thursday to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020 from 2005 levels under an international climate agreement, though it made its commitment contingent on passing legislation at home. The Obama administration submitted its much-anticipated reduction target to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat under the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding deal brokered by the United States last month at the U.N.-sponsored climate talks. Under the deal President Obama helped secure in Copenhagen, major emitters of greenhouse gases are expected to 'inscribe' their reduction targets by Jan. 31."

Copenhagen and Beyond

Big Nations File Emission Cuts Targets. By Fiona Harvey, FT, January 31, 2010. "Most of the world's big economies on Sunday filed their targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions with the UN, meeting the deadline set in Copenhagen... Many countries submitted their official targets in the form of a range. Australia, for instance, will cut its emissions by between 5% and 25% by 2020, depending on what other countries agree. In contrast, the Maldives, the island state in the Indian ocean threatened by rising sea levels, has pledged to go carbon neutral by 2020, cutting its net carbon dioxide emissions by 100%. This means diplomats will spend much of the next year trying to persuade countries to move to the upper end of their range" 

Countries Rated for Environmental Performance in New Report. Press Release, Yale, January 28, 2010. "Iceland leads the world in addressing pollution control and natural resource management challenges, according to the 2010 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) produced by a team of environmental experts at Yale University and Columbia University. This is the third edition of the EPI, which has been revisited biannually since 2006. Released on January 28 at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2010, the EPI ranks 163 countries on their performance across 25 metrics aggregated into ten categories including: environmental health, air quality, water resource management, biodiversity and habitat, forestry, fisheries, agriculture, and climate change.  

"Iceland's top-notch performance derives from its high scores on environmental public health, controlling greenhouse gas emissions, and reforestation. Other top performers include Switzerland, Costa Rica, Sweden, and Norway -- all of which have made substantial investments in environmental infrastructure, pollution control, and policies designed to move toward long-term sustainability. Occupying the bottom five positions are Togo, Angola, Mauritania, the Central African Republic, and Sierra Leone -- impoverished countries that lack basic environmental amenities and policy capacity. The United States places 61st in the 2010 EPI, with strong results on some issues, such as provision of safe drinking water and forest sustainability, and weak performance on other issues including greenhouse gas emissions and several aspects of local air pollution. This ranking puts the United States significantly behind other industrialized nations like the United Kingdom (14th), Germany (17th), and Japan (20th)...The United States' ranking does not reflect the recent policy activities of the Obama Administration, as the 2010 EPI builds on data from before 2009." 

World Economic Forum Ends With Little Consensus, But Pledges for Humanitarian Aid. By Tim Weber, BBC, January 31, 2010. "The World Economic Forum in Davos, the annual meeting of some of the world's most powerful business leaders and politicians ended with few new plans or real achievements. There was agreement though that job creation and free trade had to be key ingredients of any economic recovery. Larry Summers, economics adviser to US President Barack Obama, probably coined the most memorable phrase of this year's Davos when he said the world was experiencing a 'statistical economic recovery, but a human recession'... Arguably the most tangible result of Davos was probably a series of commitments to humanitarian causes. Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda made the most spectacular announcement, pledging $10 Billion over the next 10 years to help research, develop and deliver vaccines for the world's poorest countries. Many business leaders also made detailed promises on how they or their companies would help Haiti to cope in the aftermath of the earthquake. This was not a normal year for Davos - it had few outcomes, but an intensity of discussion and debate that is unusual even for this high-powered event." 

Pachauri Says He Will Not Step Down from IPCC. BBC, January 25, 2010. "The chairman of the UN's climate science body said he would not resign in the wake of a row about a mistake on glaciers that appeared in a key report. Rajendra Pachauri told BBC News: 'I am not going to stand down, I am going to stand up.' The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted that it had made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. Critics say the mistake has damaged the scientific credibility of the IPCC. IPCC vice-chairman Jean-Pascal van Ypersele has admitted that the inclusion of the 2035 date in a key report was a mistake. The date appeared in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (4AR), which read: 'Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world... the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high.' A number of scientists had recently disputed the date, after a row erupted in India late last year in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate summit... Dr Pachauri said the inclusion of the 2035 date in the 4AR, which was published in 2007, was 'a case of human error,' adding that it was unfortunate that it had happened. 'However, let me emphasize that this does not in any way detract from the fact that the glaciers are melting, and this is a problem that we need to be deeply concerned about.'"

Climate Legislation

Climate Bill Drives Energy Companies to Spend More. By Jim Snyder, The Hill, January 31, 2010. "Energy companies significantly increased their lobbying expenditures last year as Congress considered controversial climate change legislation that promised to rearrange the nation's energy mix. The Edison Electric Institute, which represents for-profit electric utilities, spent around $10.5 million in 2009 to lobby Congress. That was more than a 40% increase from the $7.5 million the group spent in 2008... The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's main lobby, increased its advocacy budget to $7.3 million over the $4.8 million it had spent in 2008... Meanwhile, America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents 28 natural gas exploration and production companies, paid K Street $1.6 million in 2009. The alliance spent that much in just the last half of the year in hopes of reshaping the House-passed climate bill that natural gas companies contend is too generous to the coal industry. It wasn't just fossil fuel groups spending more to influence lawmakers... The American Wind Energy Association, which lobbied aggressively in support of an economic stimulus package that included $80 billion in clean energy funding, spent more than $3.3 million to lobby Congress and the administration. In 2008, the group spent just under $1.7 million on lobbying. The Solar Energy Industries Association also spent more, although the increase was less dramatic. The trade group spent $1.6 million on lobbying, compared with the $1.4 million it spent in 2008." 

Kerry: 'It's Open How You Price Carbon;' Graham: 'Carbon Tax Has No Support'. Reuters, January 28, 2010. "U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern gave notice to the United Nations that the country will aim for a 17 percent emissions cut in carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming by 2020, from 2005 levels. The move... was conditional on other countries also submitting their pollution-cutting targets to the accord, Stern said. The condition was likely aimed at fence-sitters in Congress who do not want to see the United States commit to steps on fighting global warming unless other major polluters like China and India go along. John Kerry, the Democratic U.S. senator working on a compromise climate bill, insisted that Congress would put a price on carbon, forcing companies to pay for their global warming pollution... But he followed the lead of President Barack Obama, who called for a comprehensive climate plan during Wednesday's State of the Union speech without mentioning one of its most controversial and complicated elements, cap-and-trade, which would allow companies to trade rights to pollute. 'It's open to how you price carbon,' Kerry told Reuters. 'People need to relax and look at all the ways you might price carbon. We're not pinned down to one approach.' Kerry, who is working on the bill with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and independent Senator Joe Lieberman, strongly rejected the idea that progress had bogged down... Graham said cap-and-dividend, which would mandate carbon emission reductions while limiting the trading of pollution permits, is under review along with other options. Under that system, polluters would be required to buy carbon credits in auctions and consumers would receive most proceeds. A carbon tax has no support in Congress, Graham said." 

Conning the Climate: Inside the Carbon-Trading Shell Game. By Mark Shapiro, Harpers, February issue. "Carbon trading is now the fastest-growing commodities market on earth. Since 2005, when major greenhouse-gas polluters among the Kyoto signatories were issued caps on their emissions and permitted to buy credits to meet those caps, there have been more than $300 billion worth of carbon transactions. Major financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs, Barclays, and Citibank now host carbon-trading desks in London; traders who once speculated on oil and gas are betting on the most insidious side effects of our fossil fuel-based economy. Over the next decade, if President Obama and other advocates can institute a cap-and-trade system in the United States, the demand for carbon credits could explode into a $2 to $3 trillion market, according to the market-analysis firm Point Carbon... 

"Carbon exists as a commodity only through the decisions of politicians and bureaucrats, who determine both the demand, by setting emissions limits, and the supply, by establishing criteria for offsets. It was the United States that sculpted the cap-and-trade system during the Kyoto negotiations, before pulling out of the accord and leaving the rest of the world to implement the scheme. Since then, most of the world's major political, financial, and environmental interests have aligned themselves with the idea, because of its potential to generate profits out of adversity and to avoid the difficult economic decisions posed by climate change. Now the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress -- along with most American companies, which see cap-and-trade as the friendliest regulation they could hope for -- want to rejoin the world and multiply the market. That market is, in essence, an elaborate shell game, a disappearing act that nicely serves the immediate interests of the world's governments but fails to meet the challenges of our looming environmental crisis."

Regional Initiatives

Ballot Initiative Would Curb California Efforts. By Margot Roosevelt, LATimes, January 25, 2010. "So what happens if California delays the implementation of its landmark global warming law, AB 32? The state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office has done the math on Measure 94, a proposed ballot measure, and assessed the fallout. Its verdict?  The measure would cripple but not completely dismantle the state's efforts to slash its greenhouse gas emissions; it could lead to bigger short-term profits for some businesses, but dampen investments in clean technology and green jobs. The legislative analyst report, the first step in qualifying an initiative for the ballot, was sent to the California attorney general Tuesday. He has 15 days to give the initiative a title and a summary. Once that happens, proponents can begin gathering the 433,971 valid signatures required to place Measure 94 on the November ballot. An attorney general's spokeswoman said that is likely to happen on Feb 5.  Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, an advocate for climate curbs, is unlikely to retain proponents' current title: 'California Jobs Initiative.' 

"Assembly Bill 32, adopted in 2006, would require the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions -- which mostly come from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars -- to 1990 levels by 2020. That would be an effective cut of about 15% below today's levels. The California Air Resources Board is expected to adopt a cap-and-trade program by the end of the year, which would limit the amount each industry can emit, but allow companies to buy and sell emissions credits to lower their costs. Measure 94 would delay implementing the law until California's unemployment drops to 5.5% for four consecutive quarters (two other versions in the pipeline would delay the law until joblessness sinks even lower). The state's current unemployment rate is 12.4%. The measure is proposed by Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Marysville), Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Granite Bay) and Ted Costa, of the People's Advocate Initiative Committee (the anti-tax, Prop. 13 folks), and California tea-party activists." 

Massachusetts Announces Aggressive Energey Efficiency Measures. By Jay Lindsay, AP, January 30, 2010. "The state of Massachusetts on Friday announced ambitious energy efficiency plans for utilities that aim to triple the electricity conservation of previous plans and save utility customers $6 billion by 2012. The plans will make Massachusetts the country's top-ranked state in energy efficiency savings per capita, according to the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. State energy officials also say the plans will enable Massachusetts to supply 30% of its electricity through improved efficiency by 2020 -- a huge leap from 8% today." 

State Regulators Strongly Distrust Federal Transmission Siting. By Katherine Ling, Greenwire, January 25, 2010. "State regulators and environmental groups fear federal authority to site transmission lines would create a process that would emphasize infrastructure over costs and environmental benefits, according to a survey unveiled today by the University of Texas Center for Energy Economics and the Terra Group, a stakeholder relations consultant. The nine-month survey [PDF, 20 pp] of 11 state regulatory commissions and major national environmental organizations found that while both groups admit that the U.S. transmission system should be improved both for reliability and environmental purposes, they believe placing that power in the hands of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will lead to overly expensive lines that are not all necessarily needed. Many of the state regulators surveyed said they do not believe FERC could adequately balance local costs and needs versus the needs of a few states, the report says." 

Oregon Voters Approve New Taxes. By Harry Esteve, Oregonian, January 26, 2010. "Oregon voters bucked decades of anti-tax and anti-Salem sentiment Tuesday, raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to prevent further erosion of public schools and other state services. The tax measures passed easily, with late returns showing a 54% to 46% ratio. Measure 66 raises taxes on households with taxable income above $250,000, and Measure 67 sets higher minimum taxes on corporations and increases the tax rate on upper-level profits. The results triggered waves of relief from educators and legislative leaders, who were facing an estimated $727 million shortfall in the current two-year budget if the measures failed."

Wind, Oil, Nuclear

Wind Power Grew 39% in 2009. By Jad Mouawad, NYTimes, January 26, 2010. "Despite a crippling recession and tight credit markets, the American wind power industry grew at a blistering pace in 2009, adding 39% more capacity. The country is close to the point where 2% of its electricity will come from wind turbines... The American Wind Energy Association, in its annual report to be released on Tuesday, said the amount of capacity added last year, 9,900 megawatts, was the largest on record, and was 18 percent above the capacity added in 2008, also a banner year. The group said the growth of wind power was helped by the federal stimulus package that passed a year ago, which extended a tax credit and provided other investment incentives for the industry. But the group warned that the growth could slow. Much of the wind development in 2009 was caused by momentum from 2008, as huge turbines ordered then were delivered to wind farms. In 2009, the recession idled many manufacturers and new orders weakened, which could portend an installation slowdown this year." 

Oil Demand Has Already Peaked in Developed World: International Energy Agency. By Alex Lawler, Reuters, January 28, 2010. "Oil use in rich industrialized countries will never return to 2006 and 2007 levels because of more fuel efficiency and the use of alternatives, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency said on Thursday. The bold prediction, while made previously by some analysts, is significant because the IEA advises 28 countries on energy policy and its oil demand forecasts are closely watched by traders and policymakers. 'When we look at the OECD countries -- the U.S., Europe and Japan -- I think the level of demand that we have seen in 2006 and 2007, we will never see again,' Fatih Birol told Reuters... Birol said the economic crisis had played a role in curbing OECD demand but the main reasons were more efficient cars and the increasing use of electricity and gas instead of oil in areas outside transport." 

Radioactive Water Leaks in Vermont and Elsewhere Raise Growing Concern. By David Gram, AP, February 1, 2010. "Radioactive tritium, a carcinogen discovered in potentially dangerous levels in groundwater at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, has now tainted at least 27 of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors -- raising concerns about how it is escaping from the aging nuclear plants. The leaks -- many from deteriorating underground pipes -- come as the nuclear industry is seeking and obtaining federal license renewals, casting itself as a clean-green alternative to power plants that burn fossil fuels. Tritium, found in nature in tiny amounts and a product of nuclear fission, has been linked to cancer if ingested, inhaled or absorbed through the skin in large amounts. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday that new tests at a monitoring well on Vermont Yankee's site in Vernon registered 70,500 picocuries per liter, more than three times the federal safety standard of 20,000 picocuries per liter... Officials of the New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., which owns the plant in Vernon in Vermont's southeast corner, have admitted misleading state regulators and lawmakers by saying the plant did not have the kind of underground pipes that could leak tritium into groundwater... Vermont, with a strong anti-nuclear movement, is the only state in the country where the Legislature decides whether to relicense a nuclear plant. Vermont Yankee's current 40-year license is up in 2012, and Entergy is asking for 20 more years." 

A Nuclear Critic Draws a Lesson from France's Success. By Matthew L. Wald, NYTimes, January 19, 2010. "A new statistical analysis of an almost-secret topic -- what it costs to build nuclear reactors in France -- may have some lessons for a 'nuclear renaissance' in the United States. France, nuclear advocates often point out, gets about 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, or roughly quadruple the proportion that this country does... France, of course, built its reactors as matter of national policy, without regard to competition in the electric field; in the United States, most were built by private companies that worried about cost. And it is hard to say how successful the French were. The French national utility, Électricité de France, has never been open about what the plants cost to build. But a researcher at the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna analyzed a 2000 report that included the French utility's year-by-year expenses and correlated this to construction schedules. He concluded [PDF, 36 pp] that construction cost at the end of the period was about 3.5 times higher than at the beginning,  

"That caught the attention of Charles Komanoff, an energy analyst based in New York who began analyzing American power plant costs in the 1970s and is the author of a 1981 book [PDF, 335] comparing nuclear and coal plants of that era. Mr. Komanoff re-analyzed the data [PDF, 11pp], concentrating not only on the beginning and the end, but also the middle. He found that while costs rose over the period -- he put it at 60% -- they also fell for certain classes of reactors. One lesson, he said, was that 'building more plants in a short period of time creates a potential to reduce or at least control costs.' His findings echo what American utilities say, that building a 'first-of-a-kind' plant is expensive and later units are cheaper. But for Mr. Komanoff to reach a similar conclusion is significant, because he was a sharp critic of the industry in the construction boom of the 1980s and is no fan of nuclear power now... Putting a tax on carbon emissions, which might also spur nuclear construction, would be a smarter overall strategy than specifying nuclear plants, he said."

Trees, CO2, Arctic

USDA Weighs Genetic Engineering Commercial Forests. By Paul Voosen, Greenwire, January 29, 2010. "While the practice of splicing foreign DNA into food crops has become common in corn and soy, few companies or researchers have dared to apply genetic engineering to plants that provide an essential strut of the U.S. economy, trees. But that will soon change. Two industry giants, International Paper Co. and MeadWestvaco Corp., are planning to transform plantation forests of the southeastern United States by replacing native pine with genetically engineered eucalyptus, a rapidly growing Australian tree that in its conventional strains now dominates the tropical timber industry. The companies' push into genetically modified trees, led by their joint biotech venture, ArborGen, looks to overcome several hurdles for the first time. Most prominently, they are banking on a controversial gene splice that restricts trees' ability to reproduce, meant to allay fears of bioengineered eucalyptus turning invasive and overtaking native forests... Yet many questions remain about the effectiveness of the fertility system used by ArborGen, which, according to leading scientists, has never been rigorously studied in multiyear trials to prove that it can effectively control plants' spread. More research must be conducted before such systems are relied upon to restrict pollen and seed spread, they say... Given the uncertainty involved, however, the Nature Conservancy has recommended to USDA that ArborGen be allowed fewer acres and trees to flower, and none in Florida."

Study Finds Extra CO2 Enabling Trees to Grow Faster. By Leslie Kaufman, NYTimes, February 2, 2010. "Forests in the eastern United States appear to be growing faster in response to rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a new study has found. The study centered on trees in mixed hardwood stands on the western edge of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland that are representative of much of the those on the Eastern Seaboard. All are growing two to four times as fast as normal, according to a study published in Tuesday's issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. After controlling for other variables, scientists concluded that the change resulted largely from the increase in carbon dioxide... Geoffrey G. Parker, a co-author of the paper and an ecologist with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Md., said his research indicated that the local forests were adapting to the rise in carbon dioxide by absorbing more. 'My guess is that they are already sopping up some of the extra carbon,' he said. But Dr. Parker said it was unclear whether the trend could be sustained. 'We don't think this can persist for too long because other limiting factors will come into play, like water availability and soil nutrients,' he said."

Global Warming Opens up Arctic for Undersea Cable. By Dan Joling, AP, January 21, 2010. "Global warming has melted so much Arctic ice that a telecommunication group is moving forward with a project that was unthinkable just a few years ago: laying underwater fiber optic cable between Tokyo and London by way of the Northwest Passage. The proposed system would nearly cut in half the time it takes to send messages from the United Kingdom to Asia, said Walt Ebell, CEO of Kodiak-Kenai Cable Co. The route is the shortest underwater path between Tokyo and London."

Citizens, Voices, Action

Sierra Club Names New Executive Director. Press Release, Sierra Club, January 28, 2010. "Michael Brune, a respected leader whose strategic vision and hard-charging charm have driven a number of important environmental victories, has been named executive director of the Sierra Club, the nation's oldest, largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization. Brune, 38, takes leadership as the club, founded in 1892 by iconic conservationist John Muir, plunges headlong into the most important environmental battle of the 21st century, notching up dramatic successes against greenhouse gas-polluters and helping create the clean energy future that is the best defense against potentially catastrophic climate disruption. Brune's alignment with this ambitious mission is reflected in his critically acclaimed book, Coming Clean -- Breaking America's Addiction to Oil and Coal. Published by Sierra Club Books in 2008, the volume details a plan for a new green economy that will create well-paying jobs, promote environmental justice and bolster national security. 

Brune... comes to the Sierra Club from the Rainforest Action Network, where in his seven years as executive director he earned a reputation for using bold but respectful confrontation to encourage corporate responsibility. At age 26, he led a historic consumer-education campaign that ultimately persuaded Home Depot to stop selling wood from endangered forests. Time magazine called that victory 'the top environmental story of 1999.' Under Brune's leadership, Rainforest Action Network went on to win more than a dozen other key commitments from America's largest corporations, including Citi, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Kinko's, Boise, and Lowe's... As the Sierra Club's 6th executive director, Brune assumes a position formerly held by such legendary environmentalists as David Brower and Michael McCloskey. He succeeds Carl Pope, who, since taking leadership of the Club in 1992, has steadily increased its political clout and intellectual heft while building an influential base of more than 1.4 million members and supporters in all 50 states. Pope will maintain his 37-year tenure with the Club in the role of executive chairman." 

5 Cent Bag Tax Having Great Results in Washington DC. By Matt Yglesias, ThinkProgress, January 25, 2010. "There's a supermarket on my block and I'm a terrible planner, so I go to the supermarket a lot. Consequently, I've had plenty of opportunity to gather anecdata on the impact of DC's new initiative to impose a five cent tax on plastic grocery bags. My key observations are that I hear a ton of whining about how terrible this new tax is, and also a lot of people engaging in tax-avoiding behavior -- canvass bags, cramming stuff into backpacks, carrying items by hand. In other words, it looks to be a stunning success! The five cent fee is actually very small but people really hate paying it. Apparently it's led to something like a 50% reduction in bag usage." 

West Virginian Tree Sitters Halt Mountaintop Blasting for 9 Days. Press Release, Climate Ground Zero, January 29, 2010. "After blocking Massey Energy's operations on the Bee Tree Permit for nine days, Amber Nitchman, 19, and Eric Blevins, 28 descended from their respective trees. They had occupied the two oak trees... to protest mountaintop removal and the blasting of Coal River Mountain. Upon descent, they were immediately arrested by West Virginia State Troopers. The sitters' decision to leave the trees was made in light of the recent drop in temperature... The tree sit represents Climate Ground Zero's most sustained intervention in mountaintop removal mining operations since its campaign of nonviolent direct action began last February. Volunteers know that the fight is far from over and expect work to commence on the Bee Tree site immediately. However, they see this tree sit as a victory. 'It halted blasting for nine days. I think they've wildly succeeded with their goals,' said Climate Ground Zero volunteer Mike Bowersox. In a final communication from her perch, Nitchman captured the group's resolve. 'Its not over until the blasting is stopped,' she said."

Daniel Lippman: Citizen Journalist. By Chris Wallace, FoxNews, February 1, 2010, audio and transcript (which could use Daniel's corrections!) "Daniel Lippman a nineteen year old sophomore at George Washington University. Practices what he called citizen journalism. Which means he's a self appointed editor of some of the nation's top reporters... Lippman writes reporters telling them there's a factual error in their story. Or a misspelling. Or suggesting a lead they may want to check out is it... Most of them love his interest and respect his comments." Editor's note: CCC certainly appreciates Daniel's daily input to EE News. 

Ross Gelbspan: 'In Conclusion'. HeatisOnline.org, January, 2010, video, 15 min. A journalist's assessment of the economic, social and political implications of the climate crisis. Ross Gelbspan is the author of two seminal books on the climate crisis: The Heat is On and Boiling Point. He is also a member of the CCC steering committee. We highly recommend watching this video.

THE CLIMATE POST
"Thursdays at Three"
February 25, 2010

ClimatePost.net  |  NicholasInstitute.org  |  Duke.edu

CLIMATE BILL + CLIMATEGATE = BILL 'CLIMATE' GATES!

First Things First: Recent political difficulties for the president and key colleagues in the Senate have not removed energy and climate issues from the White House and Majority’s agenda. Obama told business executives yesterday that the U.S. economy must start “to put a price on carbon pollution.” He touted his White House’s activities on energy efficiency, nuclear power, solar, and oil drilling, but reiterated his pre-election call for a comprehensive policy: “The only certainty of the status quo is that the price and supply of oil will become increasingly volatile; that the use of fossil fuels will wreak havoc on weather patterns and air quality.” Obama made news about a year ago at the Business Roundtable, site of yesterday’s remarks, when he reminded everyone that he preferred a market-driven climate policy that auctioned “carbon credits” to polluters rather than a policy that gives them away.

The climate leadership troika in the Senate–John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman–continues to spar with the conventional wisdom that the Senate doesn’t have the momentum to take on climate right now, particularly when health care is still unsolved. They continue to find a compromise approach to legislation that would put a price on carbon.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that the agency will implement its new greenhouse gas regulations slowly, with smaller qualifying firms not needing to regulate until 2016. The largest firms would comply before 2013. Jackson emphasized these dates in a letter to eight Democrats from coal-producing states who expressed concern about the rules. The EPA’s actions are of concern to the majority of Republican senators, 35 of them, and three moderate Democrats. That’s the size of the group that supports Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) resolution to turn back the EPA’s rules. The agency faces legal challenges elsewhere, most prominently from the US Chamber of Commerce and the states of Texas, Virginia, and Alabama.

EPW ranking member Sen. James Inhofe released a GOP report into the UEA e-mail controversy, and will pursue further investigations into whether climate scientists violated any federal laws. The report can be accessed here [pdf]. Readers can read around the professional literature to evaluate its conclusions here.

Best-Thing-Ever-ism: Nothing will ever break your heart like new large-scale energy technology. That’s because there’s so much is possible but we haven’t yet been able to either close the carbon loophole that would make them economically competitive, or scale up the true “game changers.” There’s a messianism that accompanies many new technologies. This week saw some seductive new ideas that promise to be the energy sector’s latest Best! Thing! Ever!

“Where will the US get its electricity in 2034?” That’s the headline of a Scientific American interview with the head of Black & Veatch, an analysis firm that just published a report answering this question in two words: natural gas. The head analyst gave this assessment of how surveyed players in the power market understand the problem of pricing carbon: “Looking at the survey and what’s going on in the industry, regardless of people’s personal or political opinions they want to move towards a lower carbon footprint for the power sector. A lack of legislation right now in some corners creates more concern.”

“We believe we’ve developed a new type of nuclear reactor that can represent a nearly infinite supply of low-cost energy, carbon-free energy for the world.” That’s what the head of TerraPower, a firm developing an advanced nuclear reactor that uses depleted fuel. The project has the backing of Bill Gates, who gave a recent talk about the technology.

A start-up clean energy company with a brightening name and marquee backing launched publicly this week. For eight years, Bloom Energy has quietly developed and tested its solid oxide fuel cell, which uses natural gas to generate electricity for eight to ten cents a kilowatt hour. Independent estimate put the price at 13 to 14 cents a kilowatt hour, higher than the U.S. average of 11 cents. Google, Wal-Mart, and Bank of America are beta-testing units. The company’s founder, KR Sridhar has raised $400 million and expects that customers can earn back their investment in three to five years. Earth2Tech.com has a useful overview of what’s known about Bloom’s technology, with further links.

Seething Is Believing: If you’re reading this, it’s likely because you’re inclined to read something like this. That’s a glib reduction of research conducted by the Cultural Cognition Project, anchored at Yale Law School and recently discussed by NPR’s Christopher Joyce and Reason’s Ronald Bailey. This very interesting research observes with precision just how deeply people are inclined to accept facts that reinforce what they already believe. The report itself can be found here. Researchers tracked how individuals’ opinions about global warming and other topics change as they are given more and more information about a topic. This example is relevant to a central topic in climate policy:

In another experiment, people read a United Nations study about the dangers of global warming. Then the researchers told the participants that the solution to global warming is to regulate industrial pollution. Many in the individualistic group then rejected the climate science. But when more nuclear power was offered as the solution, says Braman, “they said, you know, it turns out global warming is a serious problem.”

It turns out global warming is a serious problem. After weeks or months of public confusion over what IPCC errors and the UEA e-mails mean in the big picture, dispassionate media commentators are beginning to step in and do what they are supposed to do: Filter spam out of the public discourse. That’s not something mass media are particularly good at, given their bent toward “exaggerating denialism.” Long gone are the days when a newspaper editorial could sway an election. This week a couple of the heavyweights weighed in with some clarity on the climate confusion, none more notable than the Washington Post’s Monday editorial. The paper’s op-ed editor distinguished himself last year by running several factually incoherent columns by George Will, including this one on Sunday. In this episode, Will demonstrates his ability to rip fragments from elsewhere as a stand-in for science journalism. Bill Chameides, dean of Duke’s Nicholas School, handily dismantles the problem here.

This week’s ed board effort is a fine, mature piece analyzing what non-experts can hang on to amid activists’ polemics on every side. The ed board hit particularly hard Virginia, whose attorney general last week challenged the EPA’s current effort to regulate greenhouse gases: “To see Virginia’s newly elected attorney general join in this know-nothingism is an embarrassment to the state.” The New York Times ran an editorial relatively upbeat about international climate policy negotiations, given the recent exit of chief UN negotiator Yvo de Boer. (de Boer revealed this week that his new job at accounting giant KPMG was lined up before Copenhagen in December.)

Andrew Revkin, of Pace University and the New York Times’ DotEarth blog, invited readers this week to go “Back to Basics on Climate and Energy,” an attempt to find common ground amid all the bad vibes.

Ideally, the “climate scandals” of 2009-2010 will result in a stronger general understanding of climate science that allows the U.S. policy conversation to occur with greater intellectual honesty from however many sides you think there are.

Eric Roston is Senior Associate at the Nicholas Institute and author of The Carbon Age: How Life’s Core Element Has Become Civilization’s Greatest Threat. Prologue available at Grist. Chapter about Ginkgo biloba and climate change available at Conservation.

THE CLIMATE POST
"Thursdays at Three"
February 18, 2010

ClimatePost.net  |  NicholasInstitute.org  |  Duke.edu

MELTING ICE MAKES SLIPPERY SLOPE

First Things First: Several high-profile exits from the climate conversation—Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) from the Senate; BP, Caterpillar, and ConocoPhillips, from USCAP; and chief climate negotiator Yvo de Boer from the U.N.—were widely reported this week. None of these stories carry as much long-term significance as the under-reported-on difficulty of many major English-language public information sources to communicate both that potentially dangerous climate change is underway and that professional researchers have enough confidence, despite uncertainties, to attribute it to human activity.

This problem is giving political leaders an opportunity to shut down climate policy discussions.

Climate science and the policies designed to address it will never be understood and appreciated by the public quite as well as, say, pairs figure skating is. It’s for the best, really. But, if verifiability and accuracy are qualities that we would like to see in leaders from every sector of civic life, then–as consumers and producers of public information products–maybe we should set a baseline, and point out when something smells funny. So, for today, I’d like to loosen Climate Post’s standard format, and share my own reaction to this WSJ piece.

It smells funny.

This Next Section, This Second One, Here, Is Fake; I Made it all up: The spate of recent controversies about climate research has given fresh voice to a group of scientists who question the mainstream view on two points: that human activity is warming the planet at a slow, imperceptible pace; and that human societies and institutions will be able to adapt. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in his occasional e-mailed newsletter, “At the rate world policymakers are chasing Titanic-like policies down to the bottom of the rising Atlantic ocean, our grandchildren, perhaps even our children will curse our generation as the most murderous and selfish of any in the four billion year history of life on Earth.”

Hansen’s is one voice in a coordinated chorus who are taking advantage of recent climatological observations—rising average ocean temperatures, retreating mountain glaciers, earlier spring blossoms—to promote to a wider audience the same criticisms of what they call “mainstream, slow-warming suicide science” that they have advocated, with great difficulty, in smaller circles for some time.

In the economics and policy sphere, Hansen’s concerns are echoed by the Anti-Refrigerator Forum of the American Renewables Foundation (ARF-ARF), a group of liberal economists from prestigious institutions who want to outlaw residential and commercial refrigeration in the U.S. because cooling chemicals, hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs, are powerful heat-trapping gases and refrigeration causes high carbon emissions. “It’ll be the refrigerators that march us up nine degrees Celsius,” said Akaky Akakievich, chairman of the ARF-ARF…

Okay, Back to ‘Reality,’ However Defined, and Non-Fiction, Here: That’s what an article might look like that attempted to take ideas from the (left) fringe of climate policy and pump them up into a credible movement claiming to know something no one on Earth knows: How and how quickly industrial emissions and land-use changes might change the planet’s life-support systems. It would be a disservice to write an article like that, at least without emphasizing where the critics’ extreme predictions for the future deviate from the consensus expectation: something in the vicinity of three degrees C of warming, from a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels, over several decades.

To be charitable, what the Journal has done is overlook the likelihood that its readership doesn’t understand the first thing about manmade global warming: that there is manmade global warming. This is understood at a much higher confidence level than newspaper reporting on external security threats to the US. Even if that’s still not nearly as high as we’d like.

The article is a novelty story, but is not presented as such.

What Seems to Be the Problem?: The problem seems to be that credibility-killing IPCC errors and the University of East Anglia e-mails easily cause confusion among things that should not be confused. Climate science, most visibly in the IPCC reports, might be thought of as cascading tiers of knowledge, arranged from scientists’ high to low confidence in it. It is a vast enterprise, and not all observations have equal weight. The Journal gives equal weight to all things climate science. This sounds like a benign mistake, but given what these misunderstandings (disunderstandings?) are doing to our ability to have a rational policy discussion, it’s potentially dangerous.

The WSJ piece looks at four familiar voices—Bjorn Lomborg, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, and Willie Soon—plus a retired Columbia University climatology professor whose last name means “puppet” in Russian. They each dispute either that global warming is mostly manmade or that cutting emissions is a way to respond. (Lomborg, the only person quoted who is not a research scientist, says, “It’s important to say that the scandals we’ve had don’t change the fundamental point that global warming is man-made and we need to tackle it.”) The story is pegged to Texas’ decision to challenge the US Environmental Protection Agency’s move to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The article’s logical fallacy is the hasty generalization, with a smattering of the slippery slope, and some straw men thrown in for good measure. Now don’t get me wrong. The IPCC’s error about the Himalayan glaciers is horrifying generally and to an extent personally embarrassing. An elementary mistake about Dutch geography undermines the IPCC’s credibility on other unfamiliar simple things. The UEA emails have shown that there needs to be more openness in scientific research. But check out the key line in the article:

http://s0.wp.com/wp-content/themes/pub/journalist-13/images/quote.gif); font-style: italic; min-height: 50px; background-position: 0% 0%;">

It’s too soon to tell whether the critics’ views will force the scientific community to revisit the prevailing view of man-made climate change. Many of their colleagues remain resolute in their stance that global warming is caused mainly by humankind.

It’s fallacious to construct an article on the premise that Lomborg, Christy, Lindzen, Soon, and Kukla have data or ideas that could wipe out the basic physics and environmental science that underpin manmade climate change. The question is wrong. There are no dumb questions, perhaps, but there are wrong questions and this is one of them. The reason that “colleagues remain resolute” is because they have so much data to support their arguments. Could they be wrong? Of course they could be wrong (kind of…). Is that a Mack truck accelerating toward us on the highway? Of course it might not be. But let’s get out of the way until whatever it is passes, shall we?

The media privileges virtually anything anyone says over what the data say. But the data matta! This creates a stylistic conundrum for writers. No sane publication would ever start an article on this topic thusly: “This week in Washington, atmospheric carbon dioxide absorbed and emitted electromagnetic radiation at wavelengths between, roughly, 12 to 15 microns. That’s the reliably demonstrated fact from which science’s robust understanding of manmade climate change flows, an understanding challenged by the same four people whose views are contradicted by the evidence in geophysics…”

Zzzzzzzz. The media’s bias isn’t against a political faction, but against boredom.

Punchline: The headline of the story is correct: “Climate-Research Controversies Create Opening for Critics.” They are creating openings. It’s true–but only because editors and reporters are showing at best a lack of rigor.

Winds of Change at Wall Street Journal?: The Wall Street Journal’s ownership has transferred to News Corps, which owns and operates Fox News and other politically charged news outlets in the U.S. and other parts of the Anglo-speaking world. The paper recently shut down its “Environmental Capital” blog, for the stated reason, oneWSJ staff member told me, that it wasn’t getting enough page hits.

There are still, thankfully, at least a handful of prominent reporters who understand climate change from soup to nuts. Their work, and quite frankly, their jobs, becomes more significant as widespread, impoverished mass communication dramatically and rapidly undermines climate policy of any kind at home and abroad.

Eric Roston is Senior Associate at the Nicholas Institute and author of The Carbon Age: How Life’s Core Element Has Become Civilization’s Greatest Threat. Prologue available at Grist. Chapter about Ginkgo biloba and climate change available at Conservation.

THE CLIMATE POST
"Thursdays at Three"
February 11, 2010

ClimatePost.net  | NicholasInstitute.org  | Duke.edu

SNOW IS UNEQUIVOCAL

First Things First: Attention turned this week to the Mid-Atlantic snowstorms and how to understand (and misunderstand) them, and also to how the climate science community—namely the IPCC—might prevent mistakes in process and print that have harmed its reputation in recent months.

Three feet of snow have disabled the capital region. The federal government has been closed all week and still is today, Thursday. The political world is still shoveling it out (literally). This leaves two stories of consequence in the week’s spotlight—ones that always lurk in the background: How hard it is to communicate advanced climate science to policymakers and the public, and how hard it is to communicate basic climate science to policymakers and the public.

“Eyes + Snow = Science“: Scientific controversies and errors are increasingly giving political cover to policymakers who would rather not deal with the issue, for any available reason. And the snow has reminded everyone that climate is easy enough to dismiss even without recent black eyes to the scientific community.

Political culture generally won’t bear a chain of causality longer than two links. That’s why so much opportunistic rhetoric this week focused on either of these chains: Global warming equals no snow; or snow equals no global warming. Much of the country finds it politically expedient to anthropomorphize climate science into a certain familiar persona and then beat it like it’s a piñata. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) wrote over Twitter, “It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.’” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) built an ice castle that he described as the former vice president’s new home. That’s a fine rhetorical approach for an audience that doesn’t know or care that climate change has nothing to do with Al Gore. Rush Limbaugh ridiculed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for announcing its new information service, Climate.gov, over teleconference rather than a live press conference, due to snow.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the energy committee, observed that the snow makes climate legislation more difficult politically.

In reality, climate change has a causality chain not of, say, two links but of n variables, where n=…  oh, you get the point. And warming is unequivocal.

What Comes Down Must Have Gone up: Warmer air holds more moisture. When the temperature drops below freezing, this increased moisture may produce more snow—in this case more than the region has ever recorded. Time’s Bryan Walsh turns in a concise review. Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC caused a stir by talking about the snow and global warming in the same broadcast. The New York Times makes sure in a lead to reinforce the myth of “two sides” in the climate debate. For thoughtful explorations of the possible relationship between the historic snowstorms and global warming, check out Jeff Masters’ WunderBlog post, “Heavy snowfall in a warming world,” or the Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang.

One space to watch is Climate.gov, the NOAA-led initiative to provide various levels of information and responsiveness to Americans’ questions about global warming.

And not that it matters for anything but the box scores, January was the third hottest month globally in 32 years of satellite monitoring.

Opening the Book on ‘ClimateGate’: The Guardian has undertaken an important exercise, publishing a 30,000-word “manuscript” about the pilfered University of East Anglia climate e-mails. The publication leaves the matter an open book, inviting readers to contribute their own observations and insights. More on this initiative once I’ve finished reading it.

New Paneling?: The IPCC was created before the World Wide Web opened vast sources of scientific material to the public. It’s older than the post-cold war era. University of East Anglia professor Mike Hulme, a past IPCC participant, writes in Nature (sub. req.), “It is not feasible for one panel under sole ownership— that of the world’s governments, but operating under the delegated management of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) — to deliver an exhaustive ‘integrated’ assessment of all relevant climate-change knowledge.”

Critics of every persuasion are suggesting how the IPCC should prevent errors large and small, published and procedural, in its fifth assessment report. A collection of opinions in Nature recommend breaking the monolithic United Nations-sponsored edifice into three panels producing shorter, more regular reports; creating an organization akin to the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct transparent scientific, regional, and policy assessments; protecting the layers of review in the current system; and opening the process up to Wikipedia-like community gardening.

Joe Romm of ClimateProgress.org likes to hold feet to the fire. He provides a rather thorough roasting of this New York Times effort to explain the IPCC’s woes.

Cryogenic Politics: The momentum for meaningful climate policy that grew for two years before Copenhagen has come largely to a halt domestically and internationally. The Center for Public Integrity’s Marianne Lavelle continues to track the scale of lobbying efforts in the climate arena. With the president’s original approach to climate legislation flailing, opponents are turning attention elsewhere. Lavelle finds “overt and covert” support for Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) resolution against EPA regulation of heat-trapping gases. The piece documents some activities of the farm, small business, and utility sectors.

The climate backlash continues in the states. California conservatives are pushing for a November referendum on the state’s first-in-the-nation climate law. Advocates have raised about $600,000 to pay staff to gather signatures. Gov. Jan Brewer of neighboring Arizona issued an executive order to drop her state’s participation in the Western Climate Initiative. In Utah, the House Natural Resources Committee last week approved a resolution that states, “[C]limate alarmists’ carbon dioxide-related global warming hypothesis is unable to account for the current downturn in global temperatures.” New York University’s Tyler Volk tried to persuade legislators there to follow the carbon.

The vocabulary of the international policy conversation is changing. “Legally Binding? It’s So 2009″ quips a ClimateWire story published at NYTimes.com. Negotiators surveyed by the news service suggest that more than a legally binding treaty what the community of nations needs to see is successful and demonstrable actions at home to curb pollution. Trevor Houser of the Peterson Institute for International Economics made the rounds this week with an analysis of nations’ commitments under the Copenhagen Accord.

It’s a Washington truism that if a campaign’s message doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker, it will lose. No one has ever managed to reduce global warming, let alone what to do about it, to a successful bumper sticker. And the archipelago of groups that self-identifies as the environmental movement is urged from friendly quarters to re-examine its path forward. Longtime environmental leader Gus Speth delivered the John H. Chaffee Memorial Lecture in January, saying, “The world needs a new environmentalism in America… America has run a 40-year experiment on whether mainstream environmentalism can succeed, and the results are now in.”

Trick Question, Tricky Answers: Last week I posed a query that I then thought about rigorously this weekend while shoveling about 1,000 cubic feet of snow off the driveway and street:  “Have you personally experienced global warming? And how do you know that, exactly?”

The scientifically appropriate answer to first question is, “No.” It makes about as much sense as asking a much-talked-about rookie major league baseball player after a game if he or anyone can say with certainty that a pop fly to deep right field is a reliable index of his future 20-season career batting average.

On the other hand is the increasingly accepted argument, glibly paraphrased, “But come on.” Winter precipitation of increased intensity is predicted for this region. You evaluate the evidence as deeply as you think necessary, or have time for, and make the call.

A few readers did make the call. Alex Smith, who works for Radio Ecoshock in Vancouver, wrote in, “Here in Vancouver, Canada, we have a convoy of trucks hauling snow from the Coastal mountains to our local ski hill for the ‘green’ 2010 Winter Olympics. Turns out, we just had the warmest January on record. All our local snow melted, just weeks before the ski jump and snow board competitions.”

Stuart Pimm, the Doris Duke Professor of Conservation Ecology at Duke University, wrote, “You HAVE to be kidding.  Do you know what it costs to insure my home here in the Florida Keys?  How hard is it to get property insurance? [...] Yes, Virginia, there really is global warming.  Just ask any insurance company — and those who pay them who live in the Keys.”

Yes, Virginia—and Maryland, and the District, and Delaware, and Tasmania…

Eric Roston is Senior Associate at the Nicholas Institute and author of The Carbon Age: How Life’s Core Element Has Become Civilization’s Greatest Threat. Prologue available at Grist. Chapter about Ginkgo biloba and climate change available at Conservation.