Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Climate Progress


Climate Progress


Energy and Global Warming News: Each extra year of climate inaction adds $500 billion to final cost — IEA

Posted: 10 Nov 2009 10:11 AM PST

Cost of extra year's climate inaction $500 billion: IEA

The world will have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delays implementing a major assault on global warming, the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday.

At United Nations climate talks in Barcelona last week negotiators from developed countries said the world would need an extra six to 12 months to agree a legally binding, global deal to cut carbon emissions beyond a planned December deadline.

The IEA, energy adviser to 28 industrialized countries, said the world must act urgently to put greenhouse gases on a track to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Every year's delay beyond 2010 would add another $500 billion to the extra investment of $10,500 billion needed from 2010-2030 to curb carbon emissions, for example to improve energy efficiency and boost low-carbon renewable energy.

"Much more needs to be done to get anywhere near an emissions path consistent with … limiting the rise in global temperature to 2 degrees," said the IEA's 2009 World Energy Outlook. "Countries attending the U.N. climate conference must not lose sight of this."

What needs to be done?  See "Must-read IEA report explains what must be done to avoid 6°C warming" and "IEA report, Part 2: Climate Progress has the 450-ppm solution about right."

Here's more from today's story:

U.N. talks meant to agree a deal in Copenhagen in December to extend or replace the existing Kyoto Protocol have struggled to overcome a rich-poor rift on how to split the cost of curbing carbon emissions, for example from burning fossil fuels.

Developed countries accept that they have to take the burden of cutting carbon emissions, but want developing nations to accept binding actions too under a new treaty.

Poor countries want financial help to implement carbon emissions cuts and prepare for unavoidable global warming, including droughts, floods and rising seas.

The IEA report estimated that the world needed to invest an extra $197 billion annually by 2020 to make the necessary emissions cuts in developing countries, compared with a global total of $430 billion by then.

"The Copenhagen conference will provide important pointers to the kind of energy future that awaits us," it said.

To continue present trends of energy demand and burning of fossil fuels "would lead almost certainly to massive climatic change and irreparable damage to the planet," it said.

To implement swinging carbon cuts, on the other hand, would require a huge shift in the world's energy system.

That would raise, for example, the share of non-fossil fuels to 32 percent of total primary energy in 2030, from 19 percent in 2007. The share of the internal combustion engine in new car sales would fall to 40 percent by 2030 from more than 90 percent under current trends.

Report: Extreme weather will be seen on Yangtze

Increased droughts, floods and storms will hit China's Yangtze River Basin over the next few decades, the result of rising temperatures globally, according to a report released Tuesday.

Climate change will trigger extreme weather conditions along the country's longest river, but strategies can be taken to control it, said the report, issued by the environmental group WWF-China. The group was originally known as the World Wildlife Fund.

In the past two decades, the temperature in the river basin area has risen steadily, which has led to a spike in flooding, heat waves and droughts, the report said. It is the largest assessment yet on the impact of global warming on the Yangtze basin area, which is home to 400 million people.

Data collected from 147 monitoring stations along the 700,000-square-mile (1.8 million-square-kilometer) area showed temperatures rose by 0.59 degree Fahrenheit (0.33 degree Celsius) during the 1990s. Additional findings show that between 2001 and 2005, the basin's temperature rose on average another 1.28 degrees Fahrenheit (0.71 degree Celsius).

"Extreme climate events such as storms and drought disasters will increase as climate change continues to alter our planet," said Xu Ming, the lead researcher on the report, which included expert contributions from the China Academy of Sciences, the China Meteorological Administration and other academic institutions.

The report identifies key areas that will be affected: from agriculture to various ecosystems such as forests, grasslands, wetlands and coastal regions.

Crops such as corn, winter wheat and rice will see clear declines in production, with rice crops alone dropping between 9 percent to 41 percent by the end of the century, it said. Natural habitat such as grasslands and wetlands have receded steadily in recent years while rising sea levels triggered by global warming will make coastal cities such as Shanghai more vulnerable.

Countermeasures include strengthening existing infrastructure, such as river and dike reinforcements, transport and power supply systems, the report said. Other steps include adjusting cropping systems and switching to hardier strains.

"Adaptation is a must for large developing nations" such as China, which is particularly vulnerable to climate change because of its large population and relatively low economic development, said James Leape, director general of WWF-International.

"The report is a reminder that while the whole world rises to meet the challenge of climate change, we must prepare for impacts that are already inevitable," he said.

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

JR:  This is an odd story, since EIA joined the peak oil camp over a year ago:

U.S. eyes deal with China on climate change monitoring

The United States hopes to reach agreement with China during President Barack Obama's visit on how to record and monitor countries' efforts to fight global warming, a top State Department official said on Tuesday.

The comments by Robert Hormats, undersecretary for economic, energy and agricultural affairs, offered some insight into the types of deals Obama will be hoping to strike when he visits China next week.

Obama told Reuters in an interview on Monday that Washington and Beijing needed to work together on the big issues facing the globe, and that climate change would be a key part of his November 15-18 trip to Shanghai and Beijing.

Hormats held out the likelihood of concrete deals on energy cooperation and global warming, with an eye to ensuring the two powers have more common ground when they go into key global talks on the issue in Copenhagen next month.

"I think we need out of this visit real progress on climate change, … how we can record internationally the kind of things we're doing domestically and how we can follow up and monitor one another for what we're doing," Hormats, the State Department's top economic official, told university students in Beijing.

China is considered the world's biggest annual emitter of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from human activity.

Energy agency warns of falling investment

The global financial crisis has led to a dangerous drop in energy investment around the world which could choke off the nascent economic recovery, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday.

The warning from the Paris-based agency comes just a month ahead of the major UN climate conference in Copenhagen, where world leaders hope to agree on so-called climate finance to help developing countries cut emissions by switching from fossil fuels to cleaner energy such as wind and solar.

The EU has said that there should be a euro100 billion ($150 billion) annual package of public and private finance by 2020 to help poorer nations develop green industries and adapt to climate change.

The IEA, a policy adviser to 28 mostly industrialized oil-consuming nations, estimates that the financial and economic crisis is responsible for a $90 billion drop in global oil and gas investment this year, a 19 percent cut from 2008.

"Falling energy investment will have far-reaching and, depending on how governments respond, potentially serious consequences for energy security, climate change and energy poverty," the IEA said in its annual World Energy Outlook report.

The resulting drop in oil and electricity supplies could "undermine the sustainability of the economic recovery," the IEA warned.

Britain unveils nuclear energy expansion plans

Britain set out plans Monday to speed up the planning process for big wind farms and new nuclear power plants and named 10 sites where reactors could be built.

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said new nuclear plants, combined with cleaner coal plants and more renewable energy, would help Britain to secure its energy supplies and cut its greenhouse gas emissions.

About 20 percent of Britain's electricity was generated from existing nuclear power reactors in the second quarter of 2009, but all except one of them is due to shut by 2025.

Previous attempts to build new nuclear plants have been delayed by the exhaustive planning process. It took six years and cost 30 millions pounds ($50.33 million) to secure planning consent to build the Sizewell B reactor in southern England.

Under the new proposals, decisions on plants bigger than 50 megawatts, or 100 megawatts for offshore wind, will be cut to one year.

"The current planning system is a barrier to this shift (to low carbon)," Miliband said.

"It serves neither the interests of energy security, the interests of the low carbon transition, nor the interests of people living in areas where infrastructure may be built, for the planning process to take years to come to a decision."

The list of possible new nuclear power stations includes Kirksanton, a site in Cumbria, northern England, proposed by German utility RWE which is not close to any existing nuclear facilities and overlaps a small wind farm.

The government rejected EDF Energy's Dungeness power station on the south coast of England as a possible site for new reactors because of environmental and flooding concerns.

But it approved EDF sites at Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk where the French energy giant plans to build four reactors.

"It means we can prepare to take the next steps in our plan for a multi-billion pound investment in the UK," EDF Energy Chief Executive Vincent de Rivaz said in a statement.

"It is in the public interest for the UK to build at least 15 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity which would be sufficient to meet at least 30 percent of our electricity demand by 2030.

Merkel wants climate action from US, China, India

German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Tuesday for the U.S., China and India to make substantive pledges of action against global warming in order to prevent the failure of next month's climate summit in Copenhagen.

"A failure of the world climate conference in Copenhagen would set back international climate policy by years," Merkel said in a speech to parliament outlining her new government's agenda. "We cannot afford that."

Merkel said the European Union has put forward a clear position on fighting climate change, and "we now expect contributions from the USA and countries such as China and India."

"A substantial political agreement is essential and the condition for an internationally binding … protocol for the time after 2013," she said.

Sen. Inhofe explains he's going to Copenhagen so that when Sen. Kerry says "Yes. We're going to pass a global warming bill" then "I will be able to stand up and say, 'No, it's over. Get a life. You lost. I won!' "

Posted: 10 Nov 2009 09:22 AM PST

Thousands and thousands of climate science advocates — including me — will be in Copenhagen next month trying to advance an international deal that gives the world a chance to avoid catastrophic global warming.

And then there will be the man even the Washington Post calls "the last flat-earther," Sen. James Inhofe (R-OIL).  Why is he going?  The Ada Evening News reported Monday:

Inhofe said he still intends to attend the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference.

"I'm always the spoiler at this thing. Last night I was on the Larry Kudlow show. He said, 'Inhofe is the one-man truth squad going to Copenhagen.' So when Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and all the left get up there and say, 'Yes. We're going to pass a global warming bill,' I will be able to stand up and say, 'No, it's over. Get a life. You lost. I won,' " Inhofe said.

Sadly, the U.S. Constitution restriction — "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years" — applies only to physical age.  The senior junior-high-school Senator from Oklahoma is proof of that.  What's next for Inhofe?  Perhaps during the Senate floor debate he plans to say "La, la, la, la, I can't hear you"?

Inhofe makes other equally revealing nonsense statements in the interview:

"The far left is trying so hard to get a cap-and-trade now," Inhofe said

Yes, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are the "far left" — see Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman "will be working closely with the White House" to develop separate tripartisan climate bill to get 60 votes; Graham rebukes fellow Republicans saying, "The green economy is coming!"

That statement just shows you how far, far, far right Inhofe is.

Inhofe said the Committee on Environment and Public Works passed the John Kerry—Barbara Boxer global warming bill without any Republican votes.

"We set up the rules of the Environment and Public Works Committee way back in 1970—a long time ago. The rules say that you can't report a bill out of the committee to go to the floor of the Senate unless there are two members of the minority there," Inhofe said. "What we did was I told all of the Republicans not to go so they couldn't have an official mark-up."

It's good that he finally admitted the truth that the GOP claim this was all about waiting for more EPA analysis was as bogus as everyone thought.  He just wanted to kill the bill.  But since that bill isn't going to the floor, his whole effort was wasted.

The entire article makes clear that Inhofe channels Groucho "Whatever it is, I'm against it" Marx.  It opens:

Although the healthcare bill made it through the House of Representatives on Saturday, United States Senator Jim Inhofe said it would face a harder road in the Senate.

"We will kill it in the Senate," Inhofe said. "I think the main thing I want to get across is it doesn't really matter because it (the healthcare bill) is not going anywhere."

That's The Audacity of Nope.

Ironically — or is that "tragically"? — if we don't have a climate bill, future generations are going to need a lot better health care:

The article ends with even more irony:

Inhofe said he has secured many funds for Ada, including $440,000 for a water tower for the city, $500,000 for the Ada Public Works Authority to treat Ada's wastewater/sewer system, $250,000 for the Wintersmith Dam along with other funds for the city.

Imagine that — Inhofe has brought in more than $1 million for water-related projects for the city.

Well, Ada is going to need those projects even more if the nation and the world actually listens to Inhofe and fails to take serious action on climate and clean energy, since on our current emissions path most of Oklahoma is projected to turn into a permanent dust bowl in the second half of this century.

Two years ago, Science (subs. req'd) published research that "predicted a permanent drought by 2050 throughout the Southwest" on our current emissions path — levels of aridity comparable to the 1930s Dust Bowl would stretch from Kansas and Oklahoma to California.  The Bush Administration itself reaffirmed this conclusion in December (see US Geological Survey stunner: SW faces "permanent drying" by 2050.)

But hey, the newspaper's website notes it has been "Serving Ada, Oklahoma since 1904."  So it'll be able to rerun those old Dust Bowl stories — for a long, long time (see NOAA stunner: Climate change "largely irreversible for 1000 years," with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe).

h/t Media Matters.

Baucus supports a climate bill and knows it will pass Congress, but Senate Finance Committee calls on polluter lobbyists to attack clean energy yet again

Posted: 10 Nov 2009 07:08 AM PST

Senate Finance Committee

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) knows that his state's trees are being ravaged by warming-driven pests now and that Montana faces 175% to 400% increase in wildfire burn area if we don't reverse course sharply and soon on greenhouse gas emissions.  That's why he supports strong climate action and said last week, "There's no doubt that this Congress is going to pass climate change legislation."

Bizarrely, though, his Finance Committee will hold an utterly missable hearing today on the "future of jobs" under clean energy legislation that has a witness list stacked with fossil-fuel-industry-funded polluters and deniers.  Wonk Room has the story, excerpted below:

Appearing before the committee are four industry or conservative lobbyists and one coal-industry union lobbyist, Abraham Breehey. The only economist to testify will be Margo Thorning, a lobbyist for the anti-tax American Council on Capital Formation. Also testifying is Carol Berrigan, a nuclear industry representative, Van Ton-Quinlivan of Pacific Gas & Electric, and American Enterprise Institute fellow Kenneth Green.

Green regularly spouts anti-scientific nonsense like, "We're back to the average temperatures that prevailed in 1978….  No matter what you've been told, the technology to significantly reduce emissions is decades away and extremely costly" — from a 2008 speech AEI later removed from their website (excerpts here).  Last month, Green weirdly compared EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to Clint Eastwood and carbon polluters to criminals.

One could point out that Berrigan's organization, the Nuclear Energy Institute, is not satisfied that clean energy legislation will spur nuclear energy through free-market competition, but is demanding massive subsidies and tax breaks as well.

One could point out that ACCF and AEI have received millions of dollars in funding from Exxon Mobil alone, or that Thorning refuses to reveal her methodology and Green has tried to buy climate scientists for $10,000 a pop.

Instead, let's just note that tomorrow's testimony will likely rehash the talking points that these witnesses have delivered time and again for the past ten years. Other than Ton-Quinlivan, who is appearing for the first time before Congress, the witnesses are regulars on the Hill, testifying a combined 20 times on climate and energy policy since 2002. Thorning has been the most frequent guest over the years, and this will be Green's fifth time testifying since June.

Margo Thorning:

Kenneth P. Green

Carol Berrigan:

Abraham Breehey

If the Finance Committee is really trying to learn something new about whether reforming our pollution-based energy infrastructure would create new jobs, one would think they could have put a little more effort in witness selection.

Precisely.

Related Posts:

Can't teach an old car company new tricks — not even when it's under new management

Posted: 10 Nov 2009 06:03 AM PST

Despite promises to fast-track development of three electric car models using federal loan dollars to prevent its bankruptcy, Chrysler announced yesterday that it will instead disband the engineering team responsible for the projects.

For decades Chrysler has relied on selling gas hogs like trucks and minivans to turn a profit. As the producer of five out of the top 10 most polluting, inefficient passenger vehicles in America, Chrysler has not surprisingly seen its sales plummet by half in the last few years of volatile gas prices. So the plans to become a leader in the electric vehicles market introduced under pre-bailout CEO Bob Nardelli seemed like a welcome change of direction for this old industrial giant.

However, Chrysler's new CEO Sergio Marchionne, who took leadership of the company after the government-brokered merger with Fiat, is himself personally skeptical of electric vehicles, stating that E.V.'s will only account for one to two percent of overall production by 2015 – a mere 60,000 vehicles.

The announcement that Chrysler's electric vehicle program, ENVI, would be scrapped came amidst optimistic projections in the company's brand new 5-year plan. "Some of you have [assumed] that we are losing money," said Marchionne, "this is not true." The 5-year plan promises repayment of the $12.5 billion bailout money by 2015, resting these projections on questionable assumptions that the company would double its sales by 2014, and grow revenue by 20% each year for the next five years. "Today is the first day of the new Chrysler."

Unfortunately, the "new Chrysler" is going to be one that produces about half a million fewer electric vehicles by 2014 than it promised in its application for the $12.5 billion federal bailout it received from taxpayers. Not only will this slow the growth of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles on US roads, it will also have negative supply-chain effects on suppliers of critical components, such as battery manufacturer A123.

These are the technologies that Chrysler promised American taxpayers when it sent its CEO to Washington begging for money to avoid its collapse. To renege from the agreement is unethical at best and downright dubious at worst. As recently as August, Chrysler received $70 million more in federal funds from DOE to support the development of a fleet of 220 test vehicles, which has now been scrapped.

Meanwhile, virtually every other major US automaker is putting a serious down payment on commercializing an electric drive or hybrid vehicle – from small start ups like Tesla, Fiskar, and Coda to giant mega brands like Honda, GM, and Toyota. GM plans to have the first U.S. plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, the Volt, on the market next year. GM estimates that it could get 203 miles per gallon.

Maybe Chrysler's departure from electric vehicles is a sign of an early industry "shake out," where companies without a competitive advantage tip their hat and exit the market when they foresee an inability to compete. But with more efficient fuel economy standards to contend it seems unwise for a company struggling to define its future to be turning its back on electric drive technology.
– Sean Pool

Related Posts:

Road to Copenhagen, Part 6: Tragedy of the commons vs. action by the uncommon

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 06:55 PM PST

Members of Congress are the custodians of a sacred trust: to protect the vitality and integrity of the extraordinary experiment the Founders began.  For example, the debate about climate change isn't just about polar bears and energy prices. It's about whether a free people will be a responsible people, a capitalist economy will be a caring economy and a democracy will protect the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone, even those not yet born.

Some of this sacred trust is codified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Some is unwritten and implied. And although the Constitution dictates that we keep government and religion separate, there are places in public policy where secular values and moral values overlap. Stewardship of nature and its resources – called "creation care" in religious circles – is one of those places.

Government's stewardship responsibility is recognized in the body of laws past congresses developed once we realized that burning rivers, poisoned water, dangerous air, carcinogenic fish and toxic wastes were not in the national interest.  In the  landmark National Environmental Policy Act, for example, Congress declared:

It is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may . . . fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations . . .

Some legal experts believe public officials have a fiduciary duty to protect the commons – the air, soil, water and forests on which we all depend.  Prof. Mary Wood at the University of Oregon law school champions the idea of an "atmospheric trust doctrine" under which government officials are held legally responsible for failing to reduce carbon emissions. According to research commissioned by the Presidential Climate Action Project and conducted by the University of Colorado Law School, that type of legal accountability doesn't exist in federal statutes today. But Wood argues that the common law trust principle underlies the statutes, and the courts should enforce it:

Such litigation rests on the premise that all governments hold natural resources in trust for their citizens and bear the fiduciary obligation to protect such resources for future generations. The courts have the ability to enforce this fiduciary obligation to reduce carbon at all levels of government…

Two-thirds of the greenhouse gas pollution being emitted by the United States is in compliance with government-issued permits, Wood says.  That means government is not fulfilling either its fiduciary or its moral responsibility in regard to climate change and its profoundly destructive impacts. Yet in past court cases, Wood says, we can find the seeds of an atmospheric trust doctrine. For example, in a 1982 case involving a railroad and the State of Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

The State can no more abdicate its trust over property in which the whole people are interested…than it can abdicate its police powers in the administration of government and the preservation of peace…

The Philippines Supreme Court, whose opinions might be less important to us in other countries if the court weren't discussing a global issue and basic morality, said it even better in a ruling about logging in an ancient forest:

These basic rights need not even be written the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind…(or else) the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come – generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.

On stewardship, the faith and environmental communities have found common ground and common cause in urging governments to address climate change. Among the scores of signatories to the Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change, for example, are the Dalai Lama and Herman Daly, Greenpeace and the World Council of Churches, Bill McKibben and representatives of the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Baha'i, Quaker, Buddhist and Hindu traditions.

Scientists, academics and religious leaders also have found common ground, expressed in the statement a group of leading religious and science leaders sent to President Bush and Congress in January 2007. One of the scientists, Harvard's Eric Chivian, explained:

We (science and religious leaders) share a very deep reverence for life on earth, whether that life was created by God or evolved over billions of years, it exists, is sacred to all of us, and is being endangered by human activity. It doesn't matter if we are liberals or conservatives, Darwinists or Creationists, we are all under the same atmosphere and drink the same water and will do everything we can to work together to solve these problems.

Last Thursday, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, addressed an eclectic gathering of religious leaders at Windsor Castle in London, telling them "you are the leaders who can have the largest, widest and deepest reach" in educating people about climate change. The Economist covered the meeting and reported:

People close to Mr. Ban say he is frustrated by the reluctance of politicians to stake political capital in next month's Copenhagen meeting; perhaps spiritual leaders are his last hope.

Will morality or politics-as-usual prevail on the issue of global warming? In Congress, the fate of climate legislation is being played out in a contest between morality and money. That brings us back to money-changers in the temple of democracy.

The Center for Responsive Politics reports that 2,225 lobbyists from energy companies now are working the Hill to influence climate legislation, outnumbering environmental lobbyists nearly 5 to 1.  Spending by lobbyists is on record pace this year, with the oil, gas and utility industries outspending alternative energy industries 10 to 1. In other words, the dominant army of lobbyists represents companies that produce and burn carbon-intensive fuels, protecting their perceived right to pollute and to profit from it.

Meantime, new data from the Federal Election Commission indicates that oil and gas interests already have contributed $6.3 million to candidates for federal office in the 2010 election cycle, with the election still a year away. Electric utilities have contributed about the same; coal interests have contributed more than $850,000.  It's safe to assume, I think, that the fossil energy sector is not hoping to elect a Congress that will favor a rapid transition away from the fossil-energy era.

Secular law makes this legal. In my opinion, moral law does not.

The climate debate in Congress is testing our morality as a nation, as well as the faith so many other people in the world have in the integrity of American leadership.  It's a test we should not fail.  The members of Congress who don't get this, don't deserve to be there.

– Bill Becker

Voters in Ohio, Michigan and Missouri overwhelmingly support action on clean energy and global warming

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 02:22 PM PST

The new polls also found that large majorities believe global warming is a serious or very serious threat.

Polling from 3 key states — and 5 key districts — finds strong support for the climate and clean energy bill.  Every major recent poll has come to the same conclusion (see Swing state poll finds 60% "would be more likely to vote for their senator if he or she supported the bill" and Independents support the bill 2-to-1).  Perhaps that's why E&E News found "At least 67 senators are in play" on climate bill.

In the new polls, likely 2010 voters were asked:

"Congress is considering an energy plan that has two key parts. One part would require factories and power companies to reduce their emissions of the carbon pollution that causes global warming by 17% (20% in MO) by the year 2020 and by 80% by the year 2050. The other part would require power companies to generate 15% of their power from clean energy sources like wind and solar by the year 2025. Would you favor/oppose this entire plan?"

The results:

  • 75% of voters in Michigan favor.
  • 68% of voters in Ohio favor.
  • 67% of voters in Missouri favor.

And this matches every recent poll:

The same question was asked in five swing House district and the result was the same:

  • 61% of voters in Florida's 2nd district support.
  • 69% of voters in New Mexico's 2nd district support.
  • 63% of voters in Ohio's 16th district support.
  • 70% of voters in Virginia's 5th district support.
  • 68% of voters in Washington's 8th district support.

This new polling was done August through October by "by The Mellman Group, a leading Democratic firm, and Public Opinion Strategies, a leading Republican firm" for The Pew Environment Group

"Our surveys consistently find that voters across these three states and five congressional districts support efforts to address global warming and require the use of more clean energy sources," said Mark Mellman, president of The Mellman Group. "These voters see global warming as a serious threat that is happening now and favor action to reduce carbon emissions."

It is worth adding that "all respondents heard this argument summarizing the opposition's strongest case":

Opponents of the plan say this cap and trade plan is nothing more than a hidden $2,000 per year tax on average families.  This proposal puts a tax on companies which will be passed on to all Americans forcing them to pay more every time they drive, buy groceries, or flip on a light switch. This backdoor tax will make our struggling economic situation worse, costing us hundreds of thousands of jobs and making it harder for average families to survive the recession. And, people in the Midwest and South who rely more on coal will end up paying significantly more for energy. It makes no sense to hurt our own economy as long as China, India, and others continue to build polluting coal plants.

And "after hearing strongly worded messages from both sides," voters still strongly supported the climate and clean energy bill.

You can find details on the 8 polls here.  The polling reveals the strongest arguments for the climate and clean energy bill and has some interesting implications for messaging, which I will cover in a later post.

Related Post

Breaking: EPA sends CO2 endangerment finding to White House

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 01:13 PM PST

http://www.labelident.com/images/product_images/info_images/1017_0_w76.jpg

Reuters reports:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sent its final proposal on whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health and welfare to the White House for review, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters on Monday.

The EPA's final finding, if it follows the agency's earlier assessment and is approved by the Office of Management and Budget, would allow the EPA to issue rules later to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, even if Congress fails to pass legislation to cut U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases that contribute to global warming.

For background, see New EPA rule will require use of best technologies to reduce greenhouse gases from large facilities when "constructed or significantly modified" — small businesses and farms exempt.

Here's more:

"We sent the final proposal over to OMB on Friday," Jackson said in an interview at her EPA headquarters' office.

She said the OMB has up to 90 days to review the proposal, but the EPA would like a quicker timetable.

"We've briefed them a couple of times. So we're hoping for an expedited review," Jackson said.

Along with its final endangerment finding, the EPA also sent to OMB the agency's final finding on whether cars and trucks "cause or contribute to that pollution," Jackson said.

Such a finding would allow the federal government to regulate tailpipe emissions by increasing vehicle mileage requirement.

Jackson said the government is facing a "hard deadline" of next March to let automakers know of any required increases in fuel economy standards that would affect vehicles built for the 2012 model year.

It remains vital that the administration pursue this less-than-perfect approach in case Congress fails to pass the climate and clean energy bill.

Related Post:

El Niño-driven sea surface temperatures still soaring. Hottest decade poised to get even hotter

Posted: 09 Nov 2009 11:01 AM PST

Last week I noted "El Niño-driven sea surface temperatures are soaring. Forecast: Hot and then even hotter."

They are still soaring.  NOAA's National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center has a good animation of tropical Pacific SST anomalies:

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/sstaanim.gif

The warming in the Nino 3.4 region of the Pacific is typically used to define an El Niño — sustained postive sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies of greater than 0.5°C across the central tropical Pacific Ocean.

Nino Regions

Two weeks ago the anomaly was 1.1°C.  Last week it was 1.5°C.  This week it's 1.7°C, as seen in this figure from NOAA's latest weekly update on the El Niño/Southern oscillation, "ENSO Cycle: Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions":

Nino 11-09-09

If this value is maintained for any length of time, this would be a pretty strong El Niño, as this historical graph of the 3-month running mean SST departures in Nino 3.4 region show:

ENSO 10-27

Technically, we aren't in a "full-fledged" El Niño episode yet.  NOAA says, historically, that requires the the 3-month running mean SST departure to exceed 0.5°C "for a period of at least 5 consecutive overlapping 3-month seasons."  As you can see on page 26 of the weekly report, they can't make that official until the end of this month.

For the rest of us, it's increasingly clear that this will be at least a moderate El Niño, and many models are forecasting it will last past the winter and through the spring.

And it bears repeating that back in January, NASA had predicted:  "Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance."

It still seems likely.  And that will be on top of the hottest decade in recorded history by far.

Related Post: