Homeearth Security

False As Politifact wrote Friday, the numbers that conservatives like Beck are using are "false" — "Nowhere in the documents does the Treasury Department cite the $1,761 figure," explains the fact-checking website.

Last night, Glenn Beck accused President Obama of "outright lies," engaging in a "coverup" of the cost of his green economic agenda. Beck claimed that "buried" Treasury documents from March show that the cost of a cap-and-trade carbon market to regulate global warming pollution is $1,761 per household per year, despite the president's assurance to the American public in June that "the price to the average American will be about the same as a postage stamp per day":

I have a question. Did the President of the United States tell the people in Congress about this? Facts are stubborn. Don't they suck? It is always the coverup that gets you. March 9. June 25. Mr. President, did you tell Congress about prior estimates? That, you know, that you knew about? Or did you just kind of keep it secret and hide it away from them and those pesky American people? I want to show you something that I said a few weeks ago. I was talking directly to the Democrats. I was telling them wake up. "Democrats in Congress, wake up! You are being played and you're being bypassed."

Watch it:

In reality, Beck's figure of $1,761 per household for the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) is not actually based on secret Treasury documents, but on the confabulation of a right-wing blogger at CBSNews.com. Although the Treasury Department has called this story "flat out wrong," conservatives and the oil industry have heavily promoted this inflated number, much in the same way they wildly overestimated the number of Tea Party activists who attended the Glenn Beck rally in Washington, D.C. last weekend.

On June 19th, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the ACES Act — legislation crafted by Congress, not by "czars" in the White House — and determined "that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household." Yesterday, the CBO — a Congressional research arm independent of the "spooky" executive branch — released an updated analysis that lowered its previous cost projection to "$160 per household." In other words:

The average household would spend 44 cents per day – less than a postage stamp.

The revised analysis also determined that the least well off Americans would receive a greater net benefit than its previous projections. "CBO estimates that households in the lowest income quintile in 2020 would see an average gain… [of] about $125" per household. By 2050, this net gain would increase to "$355 measured at 2010 income levels."

A clean energy economy would enjoy massive growth, according the the CBO:

CBO projects that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP [Gross Domestic Product] will be roughly two and a half times as large in 2050 as it is today.

Investing in efforts to prevent catastrophic climate change, the CBO concluded, would reduce this GDP by as little as one cent per dollar. CBO concluded that the impact of the ACES Act on the overall economy would be "modest." However, the CBO did not analyze elements of the legislation that would increase our energy independence and household savings further:

The analysis does not include the effects of other aspects of the bill, such as federal efforts to speed the development of new technologies and to increase energy efficiency by specifying standards or subsidizing energy-saving investments.

Glenn Beck is spinning a paranoid fantasy in which Democratic members of Congress are either puppets of — or conspirators with — an out-of-control, "racist" and "spooky" President. In the real world, the Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly found that a clean energy future can be ours for less than a (real) postage stamp a day.

Transcript:

BECK: You have what came out today, the outright lies coming out of the White House. I hate to call anybody a liar. You tell me. It's the cap and trade energy bill. We want to thank our friend Chris Horner at CEI for pointing this out to us. Chris, watchdog, thank you very much. This is a document behind me. This is something that the Department of the Treasury did for the White House and the government, so, you know, they could be informed. I want you to take a look at the date. It's March 9th, 2009. You remember that date. This is when the White House got this, and then it just lkinda was buried, lost. We had to get it through a Freedom of Information Act.

Look at the document, because in the document, it says "a cap and trade program could generate receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually." Wow, that's a lot. In fact, it's so much it's the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15%. Huh. Bigger is always better. That's $1,761 a year, per household, all of us, every one. Okay. That's in March. March 9th, 2009, The Department of Treasury issues a report and says, "Here, Mr. President, boy, that looks like it is going to suck. It is going to cost $1,761." Got it?

Now let's fast forward to April 20th, 2009. March — April — I'm not very good with numbers and calendar stuff, because that's complicated, because there are 12 whole months out of the year, but I think April comes after the report came out! Here is Henry Waxman, you know, from the Waxman-Markley [sic] energy bill. he said this —

"The cost of the bill that Mr. Markey and I proposed, this analysis says the bill will cost the average family less than 40 cents per day."

You know, I'm not very good with numbers but I think $1,761 is more than 40 cents. I'm not a congressman. If you look at the Treasury estimates, Waxman is only underestimating the cost by 1200%. Now, let's fast forward a little further. Listen to President Obama. Remember, March 9th, 2009, Department of the Treasury. Here's their confidential analysis. "Dear Mr. President, it's going to cost a lot of money."

Let's listen carefully to what President Obama estimated on June, June 25th.

"In a decade, the price to the average American will be about the same as a postage stamp per day."

Wow. I think he just did it, too, 1200%, but he was a little more careful, you know. He did actually say, "in a decade from now." He didn't mention that today that stamp would cost $1,671! I'm just saying. He's very accurate, because that's the new stamp.

I have a question. Did the President of the United States tell the people in Congress about this? Facts are stubborn. Don't they suck? It is always the coverup that gets you. Hah. March 9th. June 25th. Mr. President, did you tell Congress about the higher estimates? That, you know, that you knew about? Or did you just kind of keep it secret and hide it away from them and those, ha, pesky American people? I want to show you something that I said a few weeks ago. I was talking directly to the Democrats. I was telling them wake up. Democrats in Congress, wake up! You are being played and you're being bypassed.

Look at all of the czars. I mean, what do you think they're for? Look, they don't answer to anybody. Look, the presidents have had czars for a long time. Woodrow Wilson, he was spooky. FDR, spooky with the czars! Some of the people, you know, they had a bunch of drinking buddies, you know like, oh, would you just make this guy go away? Fine. You want to put them in as special advisors and they don't have any power, they don't have any muscle. Wasn't it Carol Browner who said that? Hey, I don't ever want to see this in writing as she's talking to the car dealers or the car companies, yeah, that kind of spooky power. If they have real power, it's a problem. This guy, Woodrow Wilson, he was a progressive just like this president. He talked about, you know, ways to get things done by going around Congress.

Guess what? This is a progressive in the White House. That's what he's doing. He's going right around Congress. When are you going to wake up, Congress?

NYT: Senate Dem leaders "are pressing colleagues to vote with the party on procedural matters … and against any filibuster … even if they intend to oppose the measure in the end when simple majority rules."

Posted: 20 Sep 2009 06:09 AM PDT

Okay, so that is a New York Times story on the "uphill battle" to pass health care reform:

Senate Democratic leaders have begun to make another argument to lawmakers. They are pressing colleagues to vote with the party on procedural matters related to health care legislation and against any filibuster — a 60-vote issue — even if they intend to oppose the measure in the end when simple majority rules.

But the point is we should have the same exact strategy on the clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill. After all, two key swing senators have already said they would vote for cloture on that bill:

Arlen Specter (D-PA): "No doubt about" voting for cloture on the climate bill
Sherrod Brown (D-OH) says he won't filibuster climate bill

And, according to the NYT, there is at least a glimmer that this strategy might work for some on health care:

Senators are usually reluctant to clear the way for a bill they might vote against since they relinquish their most powerful leverage, but the message is evidently reaching some.

"It is difficult to ask someone to facilitate the enactment of legislation with which they disagree," Mr. Bayh said. "But to move the process forward, to improve things, to get to the point where you can support it substantively, that of course I would be willing to do."

So I'm going to put Bayh down as a "Yes" for cloture on the climate and clean energy bill.

Does the health reform morass hurt prospects for the climate bill?
Can Obama deliver health and energy security with a half (assed) message?
Obama: "Those who are betting against this happening this year are badly mistaken," the Democratic National Committee this week began running TV ads targeting many wavering senators.

Cartoon of the Day

Posted: 20 Sep 2009 06:06 AM PDT

From the 9/14 New Yorker.

Posted: 19 Sep 2009 09:23 AM PDT

Polar bears are the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie of climate-change-endangered Arctic species. They get all the press (see Will polar bears go extinct by 2030? — Part II and Bush launches Unendangered Species List, phones "Rename the Polar Bear" winner"). But not-so-photogenic animals suffer at the hands of human-caused global warming, too, as World Wildlife Fund's Nick Sundt explains in a post first published on WWF's climate blog.

Just days after Arctic sea ice receded to the third lowest extent on record, forcing thousands of walruses ashore, researchers flying along the Alaska coast stumbled upon a grisly scene: 100 to 200 walrus carcasses along the shoreline of Icy Cape, southwest of Barrow.

By 12 September, Arctic sea ice had receded to the third lowest extent on record [see here]. On 16 September, we reported in As Sea Ice Reaches Annual Minimum, Impacts of Arctic Warming Grow :

As in 2007, walruses have gathered along the northwest coast of Alaska as sea ice retreated beyond the continental shelf. When the edge of the ice recedes beyond the edge of the shelf, it is over water too deep for the walruses to feed in; they are forced to feed from land rather than from the sea ice. On 8 September, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced a review of the walrus' status, to determine whether it should be added to the list of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. According to the FWS, the decision was based "in part, upon projected changes in sea ice habitats associated with climate change."

Walruses have not just been gathering along the Alaska shoreline. The scene is being repeated elsewhere in the Arctic. WWF Polar Bear coordinator Geoff York returned on 17 September from a trip along the Russian coast and saw a haul out there with an estimated 20,000 walruses near Ryrkaipiy (on the Chukchi Peninsula). As he reported in a blog entry on 4 September:

"Walrus had not occupied this area in recent memory and definitely not in these numbers… We do know that walrus throughout the Chukchi have been abandoning the sea ice completely when it recedes out beyond the continental shelves.. We know this from animals tracked by satellite tags and also from observations along both the Chukotka and Alaskan coasts of walrus appearing in large numbers and in areas they have never been seen before."

See additional details on the impacts of receding sea ice on walruses in the U.S. Geological Survey's fact sheet, Pacific Walrus Response to Arctic Sea Ice Losses.

According to Walruses Gather as Ice Melts in the Arctic Sea, Associated Press, 17 Sep 2009:

Chad Jay, a U.S. Geological Survey walrus researcher, said last week about 3,500 walruses were near Icy Cape on the Chukchi Sea, about 140 miles southwest of Barrow….Walruses for years came ashore intermittently during their fall southward migration but not so early and not in such numbers. `This is actually all new,' Jay said. `They did this in 2007, and it's a result of the sea ice retreating off the continental shelf.'… Federal managers and researchers say walruses hauling out on shore could lead to deadly stampedes and too much pressure on prey within swimming range.

Also on 17 September, journalists reported that 100 to 200 dead walruses had been spotted along the shoreline at Icy Cape by scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (see Carcasses of dead walruses spotted on Alaska coast, Juneau Empire, 18 Sep 2009). The USGS researchers were flying along the Alaska coast. Until scientists on the ground can access the site and assess the situation, no specific cause of death can be determined.

A stampede unfortunately is among the possibilities. According to the USGS fact sheet:

During autumn 2007, tens of thousands female and young walruses began using resting areas along the northern coast of Chukotka [Russia], after sea ice was no longer available. There, a few thousand mortalities were reported, apparently from trampling due to disturbances that caused adults to stampede into the water.

For details on that 2007 incident, see 3,000 walruses die in stampedes tied to climate: Shortage of sea ice on Russian side of Arctic led to crowded conditions (MSNBC, 14 Dec 2007 [JR: photo below from that story])

As reports were coming in about the dead walruses in Alaska on 17 September, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner carried an editorial ("Arctic Barometers: Walrus Congregations Show Worrisome Behavior"; likely written before the dead walruses were reported) saying:

Reports of thousands of walrus forming unusual congregations on Alaska's North Slope appear to confirm again the environmental challenges posed by relatively low fall ice coverage within arctic water…. Alaskans should be watching these barometers of climate change carefully as the debate rages about what can or should be done.

Resources:

** Pacific Walrus. Informative set of pages from the Center for Biological Diversity.

** Pacific Walrus Response to Arctic Sea Ice Losses. USGS fact sheet.

** Photos of Walruses. From the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska.

** WWF International Climate Blog, Northeast Passage expedition diary:
**** Northeast Passage: Saving the Arctic, one walrus at a time, Sunday, September 13th, 2009
**** Northeast Passage: Observing walrus up close, Saturday, September 5th, 2009
**** Northeast Passage: A truly exceptional day, September 4th 2009

** Sailor Completes Norway-Alaska Trip. WWF Polar Bear coordinator Geoff York describes to Alaska Public Radio his experience on a WWF-supported Northeast Passage expedition.

** As Sea Ice Reaches Annual Minimum, Impacts of Arctic Warming Grow . WWF US climate blog,

Supposedly 'green' printing company sponsoring oil front group conference

Posted: 19 Sep 2009 06:13 AM PDT

Yet another company caught greenwashing, courtesy of Wonk Room.

In October, corporate front group Americans for Prosperity is hosting its annual "Defending the American Dream" conference. The get-together will feature right-wing notables such as Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), CNBC's Larry Kudlow, and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). The keynote address will be given by Newt Gingrich, who was propelled back into the media spotlight last year with his "Drill Here, Drill Now" pro-oil campaign.

One of the "Gold Sponsors" of AFP's global warming denying conference is the "green" print and paper company TrayPML. TrayPML markets itself as a company that makes "active strides to protect the planet." On its website, TrayPML also boasts about its ability to help companies "go green." The company touts its environmental credentials by publicizing the World Wildlife Fund as an esteemed client. AFP, of course, mocks the protection of endangered wildlife, and argues for increased drilling in Alaska's preserved lands.

TrayPML

AFP is supported largely by money derived from the Koch Industries polluter empire. David Koch, the billionaire VP of Koch Industries, sits on the board of the AFP Foundation and helped found its predecessor, Citizens for a Sound Economy. Koch Industries has an abysmal environmental record that includes both major oil spills and several instances where Koch pipelines leaked millions of gallons of toxic crude into ponds, lakes and streams across the country. Supporting Koch's polluter agenda, AFP runs various organizing efforts to discredit global warming science, and mobilizes opposition to clean energy legislation. Not only that, but AFP's Phil Kerpen, as ThinkProgress has noted, is waging an all out war against the concept of green jobs..

By sponsoring AFP's anti-environmental conference, TrayPML wipes out any possible credibility that the firm is a friend of the "green" movement.

Energy and Global Warming News for September 18th: UN Secretary General calls for immediate action

Posted: 18 Sep 2009 01:04 PM PDT

U.N Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon Calls for Immediate Action on Climate Change

Two weeks ago, I visited the Arctic. I saw the remains of a glacier that just a few years ago was a majestic mass of ice. It had collapsed. Not slowly melted — collapsed. I traveled nine hours by ship from the world's northernmost settlement to reach the polar ice rim. In just a few years, the same ship may be able to sail unimpeded all the way to the North Pole. The Arctic could be virtually ice-free by 2030.

Scientists told me their sobering findings. The Arctic is our canary in the coal mine for climate impacts that will affect us all.

I was alarmed by the rapid pace of change there. Worse still, changes in the Arctic are now accelerating global warming. Thawing permafrost is releasing methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. Melting ice in Greenland threatens to raise sea levels.

Meanwhile, global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

I am therefore all the more convinced we must act — now.

To that end, on Sept. 22 I am convening a special summit on climate change at the United Nations for some 100 world leaders — history's largest-ever such gathering of heads of state and government. Their collective challenge: transform the climate crisis into an opportunity for safer, cleaner, sustainable green growth for all.

The key is Copenhagen, where governments will gather to negotiate a new global climate agreement in December.

I will have a simple message to convey to leaders: The world needs you to actively push for a fair, effective and ambitious deal in Copenhagen. Fail to act, and we will count the cost for generations to come.

Climate change is the preeminent geopolitical issue of our time. It rewrites the global equation for development, peace and prosperity. It threatens markets, economies and development gains. It can deplete food and water supplies, provoke conflict and migration, destabilize fragile societies and even topple governments.

What is needed is political will at the highest levels — presidents and prime ministers — that translates into rapid progress in the negotiating room. It requires more trust among nations, more imagination, ambition and cooperation.

I expect leaders to roll up their sleeves and speak with — not past — each other. I expect them to intensify efforts to resolve the key political issues that have so far slowed global negotiations to a glacial pace. Ironically, that expression — until recently — connoted slowness. But the glaciers I saw a few weeks ago in the Arctic are melting faster than human progress to preserve them.

EU Worried US Senate Dragging Its Feet on Climate Change

The EU ambassador to the United States said on Thursday that any delay by the U.S. Senate that pushes action on climate into next year could subject the country to the charge that domestic politics will always trump its international commitments.

Such a move would postpone the formation of an overall U.S. climate plan until after a U.N. climate meeting in Copenhagen in December, when 190 countries hope to craft a new treaty to fight greenhouse gas emissions.

"If this were to happen it would open the United States to the charge that it does not take its international commitments seriously, and that these commitments will always take second place to domestic politics," John Bruton, the EU's ambassador to the United States, said in a press release.

He said asking an international conference "to sit around looking out the window for months, while one chamber of the legislature of one country deals with its other business, is simply not a realistic political position."

Iowans Show Support for Clean Energy and Climate Bill

At a public hearing before the Iowa Utilities Board this morning, a broad coalition of Iowa citizens will call for the Iowa Utilities Board to stand up to utility pressure on climate change. Through previously submitted written comments and personal testimony at a workshop on Friday, these citizens will make the scientific, economic and personal case for why Congress should pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES).

Several of the groups submitted analyses that showed how Iowa will benefit from clean energy legislation through job growth and income in manufacturing, renewable energy and energy efficiency. Others showed that the moderate costs of the bill are miniscule compared to the threat of global climate change.

"These analyses get past the scare tactics that have been prevalent in the debate over climate change legislation," said David Osterberg, executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. "Under one respected analysis, the additional cost to the average Iowa household is estimated at $4 a month, about the cost of a Big Mac and fries. That is a small cost to assure energy security for the future."

Wally Taylor, attorney for the Sierra Club, Iowa Chapter added, "In fact, when the energy efficiency and renewable energy measures in the federal climate bill are included, the analysis projects a monthly savings of over $5 on electric bills by 2020."

"There is so much more at stake here than minor changes in electric rates," said Rob Kelter, Senior Attorney for the Environmental Law & Policy Center "Clean energy can be a major driver of economic growth in Iowa, but we have to stand up to the utilities to make it happen."

"Iowa is well-positioned to move to a clean-energy economy under this legislation. Our state is a leader in energy efficiency and wind-energy production and has vast untapped potential for clean energy development," Nathaniel Baer, energy program director for the Iowa Environmental Council said.

National Parks Soon to be Empty of Glaciers

If you want to see glaciers in Glacier National Park, you had better hurry. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that within 20 years, the park will be empty of glaciers. As temperatures rise and politicians debate how to respond to climate change, the national parks already seem to be feeling the effects.

At hearings in April, Jonathan Jarvis, the Obama administration's nominee as director of the National Park Service, called the national parks "the proverbial canary in the coal mine." He noted that the parks are both largely undisturbed and closely monitored, so the effects of the hanging ecosystem can be more easily documented.

Recent changes at the parks are hardly encouraging. Rocky Mountain National Park is battling an unprecedented infestation of bark beetles that threatens large swaths of trees; Joshua Tree National Park is counting fewer and fewer of its namesake trees; and in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, ranger Adrianne Freeman notes that staffers have seen fewer days of snow as well as plant and animal migration to higher altitudes, where temperatures remain cool.

EU Urges G20 to Give Billions to Poor Nations in Climate Fight

EU leaders on Thursday put pressure on the United States and other rich nations to provide at least five billion euros of "fast-start" money next year to help poor nations tackle climate change.

The call came as European heads of state and government held a summit in Brussels aimed at forging a joint position ahead of the G20 summit of major and developing economies in Pittsburgh next week.

"The G20 should recognise the need to fast-start international public support for addressing urgent climate financing needs in developing countries," the EU leaders agreed in a statement.

The European Commission estimates that five to seven billion euros annually will be needed in the 2010-2012 period until a more long-term "financial architecture" is put in place, hopefully, at a UN climate conference in Copenhagen later this year.

The commission says that the annual figure needed to help developing nations combat and deal with climate change will hit 100 billion euros (147 billion dollars) per year by 2020.

"It's time for a wake-up call to world leaders on climate," said Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who presided over the Brussels summit.

The United States and the rest of the world are not doing enough to tackle climate change at a time when "the world has a fever," he said.

"We really need to step up, stop the acting and start delivering action."

Senate Moderates Ask for Help Navigating Clean Energy Bill (subs. req'd)

Five key Senate Democrats have asked for White House help as they try to write a piece of the global warming bill that keeps energy-intensive domestic industries from moving to developing countries that do not have their own strict environmental laws.

Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Sherrod Brown of Ohio sent a letter last Friday to President Obama's top climate adviser requesting more information on a key section of the House-passed climate bill that deals with the most trade-sensitive industries.

In their letter, the senators requested an analysis of the House-passed provision in H.R. 2454 that gives U.S. EPA the authority to determine which trade-exposed industries are eligible for the pot of free allowances starting in 2014 that could potentially be worth tens of billions of dollars.

The senators asked the White House adviser to pull together economic modeling and international trade data from U.S. EPA, the Energy, Commerce and Treasury departments, the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. They also requested a briefing for industry groups "so they can gain a fuller understanding of all the likely provisions of a cap-and-trade bill that may help their industries."

Climate Scientists Call for Sharper Emissions Cuts (subs. req'd)

Top climate scientists, including a former chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said yesterday that world leaders must agree to ambitious short-term cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid "dangerous" climate change.

Holding rising global temperatures to an average of just 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels will require developed countries to cut their emissions of heat-trapping gases at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, the researchers said in an open letter organized by the World Wildlife Fund.

That's well above the 10 to 16 percent cuts that developed countries have committed to in advance of U.N. climate negotiations later this year in Copenhagen. But much steeper cuts are required, the scientists said.

"More than 120 countries, including members of the G8, the EU, and key emerging economies such as China, South Africa and Mexico, agree that the rise in global temperature must stay well below 2° Celsius," they wrote. "Beyond this point, climate impacts will be more severe, with the risk of crossing 'tipping points' with dangerous and irreversible effects."

Forty climate scientists signed the letter, including Sir John Houghton, a former IPCC chairman and a former chairman of the U.K. Meteorological Office.

BP Expands Wind Power in U.S.

BP is expanding its wind power electricity generation capacity in the United States but is shedding an Indian unit, which has been sold to Green Infra Limited of India.

BP said Green Infra Limited purchased its subsidiary, BP Energy India Private Limited, for a total cash-free, debt-free enterprise value of about $95 million. Green Infra Limited is an independent power producer owned by funds managed by India's leading infrastructure-focused private equity company, IDFC Private Equity.

BPEIPL owns and operates three wind farms in India with a total generating capacity of about 100 megawatts. The transaction was completed Wednesday.

BP's decision to sell BPEIPL stemmed from a strategic review in 2008 that shifted focus on developing key wind power markets, especially the United States, as part of its future business strategy.

"We estimate that if 10 percent of the world's power came from wind, it would cut CO2 emissions by one billion tons per year," BP said.

The challenge, however, is to expand wind operations to form a material business that can own and operate gigawatts of installed power.

David Nicholas, a BP spokesman, told United Press International the company currently operates six wind power units in the United States and has begun construction of two more this year.

Green Catholicism Atlantic Online

Green Catholicism
Atlantic Online

US climate legislation may wait to 2011: Duke CEO Reuters

US climate legislation may wait to 2011: Duke CEO
Reuters

Report: Future Bright for Solar Thermal New York Times

Report: Future Bright for Solar Thermal
New York Times

Success of Palm Oil Brings Plantations Under Pressure to Preserve ... New York Times

Success of Palm Oil Brings Plantations Under Pressure to Preserve ...
New York Times

Climate change campaigners should not have fixated on carbon dioxide

Climate change campaigners should not have fixated on carbon dioxide

San Francisco airport opens "Climate Passport" kiosks Seattle Times

San Francisco airport opens "Climate Passport" kiosks
Seattle Times

Eureka! Biofuel from rubbish, made in Pleasanton San Francisco Chronicle

Eureka! Biofuel from rubbish, made in Pleasanton
San Francisco Chronicle

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Besides whine we will do what? US Tax Breaks Subsidize Foreign Oil Production Reuters

Besides whine we will do what?
US Tax Breaks Subsidize Foreign Oil Production
Reuters

In our States we are doing what? Schwarzenegger Creates 33% RPS By Executive Order Reuters

In our States we are doing what? Schwarzenegger Creates 33% RPS By Executive Order
Reuters

Activists will do what? Can condoms combat climate change? Los Angeles Times

Can condoms combat climate change?
Los Angeles Times

Worldwide Dairy Industry to Sign Global Declaration on Climate Change Reuters

Worldwide Dairy Industry to Sign Global Declaration on Climate Change
Reuters

Merkel and Sarkozy in joint call for UN "mandate" on climate change Monsters and Critics.com

Merkel and Sarkozy in joint call for UN "mandate" on climate change
Monsters and Critics.com

Alternative Energy Machine May Double World Food Production Reuters

Alternative Energy Machine May Double World Food Production
Reuters

Climate Progress

Obama Admin: The Twitternomics of CBS correspondent Declan McCullagh is "flat out wrong"
Reid pledges to move cap-and-trade bill "as quickly as we can"
A message from Van Jones: What you can do
Energy and Global Warming News for September 17: White House plays down talk of climate delay to 2010; India ready to issue non-binding emissions cut; Duke Energy CEO says "I actually can see a future where coal is not in the equation in 2050."
Worst headline of the week — "Vilsack: Climate change could help rural economies"

Obama Admin: The Twitternomics of CBS correspondent Declan McCullagh is "flat out wrong"

Posted: 18 Sep 2009 07:38 AM PDT

When we last left CBS's Declan McCullagh, he was promoting another fossil-fuel-funded, falsehood-filled CEI attack on clean energy reform. I've been at Elizabethtown College talking to their terrific faculty and students, so I haven't been able to respond in detail to all of the nonsense he has been peddling, but Wonk Room's Brad Johnson has another great post that I will reprint here.

Yesterday, libertarian blogger Declan McCullagh, a senior correspondent for CBSNews..com, made the incendiary claim that the Obama administration was suppressing Treasury Department documents detailing the true cost of limiting greenhouse gases. After CBS published the story, "Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year," Republicans claimed this was a startling admission, since it has officially estimated an average household cost in 2020 of $80 to $175. It turns out, however, that the $1,761 figure was constructed by McCullagh himself, not the administration, using a new form of economic analysis, Twitternomics:

McCullagh's Twitternomics

Here's one more math formula: McCullagh Twitternomics ≠ Obama Administration Analysis. Assistant Treasury Secretary Alan Krueger responded simply that the CBS "reporting" was "flat out wrong":

The reporting on the Treasury analysis is flat out wrong. Treasury's analysis is consistent with public analyses by the EIA, EPA, and CBO, and the reporting and blogging on this issue ignores the fact that the revenue raised from emission permits would be returned to consumers under both administration and legislative proposals. It is time for an honest debate about how to solve a long-term challenge and deliver comprehensive energy reform – not for misrepresentations of the facts.

In a follow-up piece, McCullagh quotes the response from Treasury, but somehow failed to include the lines where his reporting was called for being "flat out wrong" and using "misrepresentations of the facts."

McCullagh is on the fringes of the right-wing Koch-Exxon pollution machine, writing for the Cato Institute (founded by David Koch and funded by ExxonMobil) and Reason Magazine (part of the Reason Foundation, funded by David Koch and ExxonMobil). Koch Industries' revenue last year was estimated by Forbes to be $98 billion — in McCullagh's Twitternomics, a tax on American families of $863. ExxonMobil's record 2008 revenue was $442.85 billion — a McCullagh tax of $3,902.

McCullagh's anti-government libertarianism sometimes reaches absurdities, as when he argued in 2004 that "Keynesian economists who believe in activist government intervention in the economy" were "fooled by the Soviet Union." Further, McCullagh — who exaggerated his position at CBS — is an old hand at ascribing outlandish headlines to liberals that he actually made up himself.. His real claim to fame is for establishing the false meme in 1999 that Al Gore made an "improvident boast" about inventing the Internet.

But none of this should come as a surprise, as McCullagh's CBS blog is titled, appropriately, "Taking Liberties."

Reid pledges to move cap-and-trade bill "as quickly as we can"

Posted: 18 Sep 2009 07:05 AM PDT

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) insisted today that he hopes to move a comprehensive climate bill "as quickly as we can" but stopped short of endorsing action over the next three months before a major international global warming summit in Copenhagen.

Reid earlier this week fueled speculation that the climate bill would be punted until 2010 because of a cramped legislative calendar that also includes health care and Wall Street regulations. His comments left many foreign diplomats nervous ahead of this December's U.N. climate negotiations, where the Obama administration will be relying in large part on the fate of legislation on Capitol Hill.

So E&E News (subs. req'd) reports this morning. After Reid's initial statement, of course, his aide immediately walked back the statement..

Even more important, I'm told, the climate science realists in the Cabinet had a come-to-jeepers* meeting this week with the political team, and the word went out from the White House that the climate bill is still a top priority of the administration, with a strong desire to see the Senate act this year. That said, I thought the White House's commitment to the issue was fairly obvious from the big recent news: Obama to speak at U.N. special session on global warming; Todd Stern testifies "Nothing the U.S. can do is more important for the international negotiation process than passing robust, comprehensive clean energy legislation as soon as possible…. President Obama and the Secretary of State, along with our entire Administration, are committed to action on this issue."

Here's more from Reid himself on the timing — and some relatively positive words for a surprising Senate source:

Asked about the international uproar over his comments that the bill may be delayed, Reid quickly replied, "I didn't say that."

"We've always talked about doing climate after health care, OK?" Reid added. "The president has been pushing hard on regulation reform. Maybe we do that first. I don't think so. But there's no reason we can't do both of them. Nobody talked about next year. What I said is this is a Congress. It lasts for two years. We've got tons of stuff we're going to have to do next year. Climate change is something we're going to have to do as quickly as we can."

Reid said he did not know how long the Senate would be occupied with the health care legislation. He also said that Democratic committee leaders no longer have a deadline to wrap up their pieces of the climate bill.

"We did have a date," Reid said, referring to the Sept. 28 target that he abandoned earlier this month. "And health care has pushed all that back."

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) are writing the core pieces of a climate bill, with plans for an introduction before the end of the month. The two are planning markups in October despite the all-out focus on health care.

"Even though we're competing for space and time with health care, the fact of the matter is, these are problems of enough magnitude and enough importance that there's an urgency attached to them," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), a member of the EPW Committee.

Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) said today that she is still reluctant to move too quickly on the global warming bill.

"I do have concerns about agriculture and consumers, in terms of the cost of food and things that I don't think have really been fleshed out," Lincoln said. "It looks like the bill they're going to produce has placeholders for some of those. I don't know. If it's got some ideas of how we answer those questions, I'll look forward to looking at it. But I haven't seen it."

The Senate health care debate "is kind of sucking all of the air out of the room" as other colleagues try to discuss climate change, Lincoln said.

But she is already working toward more hearings on global warming and drafting language that can be inserted into the Boxer-Kerry bill without a markup.

"I don't anticipate the need to mark up a bill," Lincoln said. "If it comes to that point, I'm not afraid to do it. But I certainly don't see the need. I think, working with my colleagues, we can come up with some good things."

Those are certainly more positive words than we've heard from Lincoln to date (see "Much ado about not much: New Ag Chairwoman may not change Senate dynamic on climate bill push").

*[I have a 2 1/2 year old daughter, so I have to be more careful what I say -- and I dictate all of my blog posts using Dragon NaturallySpeaking software. In place of her saying "Oh, Jesus" -- and no, that wasn't me she was imitating -- we've taught her to now mostly say "Oh jeepers, Batman"!]

A message from Van Jones: What you can do

Posted: 17 Sep 2009 12:39 PM PDT

Van Jones: building an The agenda of the people who smeared Van Jones is a matter of public record — see Fox News blurts out its agenda: "Now that Jones has resigned, we need to follow through…. First, stop cap-and-trade, which could send these groups trillions," and then put "the whole corrupt 'green jobs' concept outside the bounds of the political mainstream."

Now Van Jones has written a message to his friends and supporters laying out his agenda — a call to action, really:

Dear Friends:

My family and I want to thank everyone for the outpouring of love and support that we have received over the past week or so. I resigned from the White House on Sept. 6, and I have remained silent since then—in keeping with my promise not to be a distraction during a key moment in the Obama Presidency.

Over the past several days, however, many people have been asking how they can help and what they can do.

The main thing is this: please do everything you can to support both President Obama and the green jobs movement. Winning real change is ultimately the best response to these kinds of smear campaigns.

I ask everyone to:

1. Support President Obama's efforts to fix our nation's health care, energy and education systems. His victory last fall did not represent the "finish line" in the fight to renew America; his election was just the "starting line." This autumn, it is time to make history again—with victories on health care and clean energy.2. Sign up to support groups that are working for green jobs.

As others seek to vilify or marginalize the movement for a clean energy economy, the leading groups deserve increased support. This is the year to ensure that the clean energy transformation creates good job opportunities for everyone in America.

3. Spread the green jobs gospel. The ideas and ideals of the green jobs movement are grounded in fundamental American values—innovation, entrepreneurship, and equal opportunity. My true thoughts can be found in my book: The Green Collar Economy. Check it out from the library—or order a copy and share it with a friend. See for yourself why clean energy and green jobs are good for our country.

4. Stay connected and speak up for me via your favorite blogs (e.g., Huffington Post, Grist, Jack & Jill, etc.), on message boards and all of your favorite social networking platforms (Twitter, Facebook, etc.). Supporters have set up a couple of them, to help you stay engaged, including: I Stand With Van Jones and I Love Van Jones.

In due course, I will be offering my perspective on what has happened—including correcting the record about false charges. In the meantime, I must get my family affairs in order and sort through numerous offers and options.

I want to be clear that I have nothing but love and admiration for President Obama and the entire administration. White House staffers are there to serve and support the President, not the other way around. At this critical moment in history, I could not in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. The White House needs all its hands on deck, fighting for the future.

Of course, some supporters actually think I will be more effective on the "outside." Maybe so. But those ideas always remind me of that old canard about Winston Churchill. After he lost a hard-fought election, a friend told him: "Winston, this really is just a blessing in disguise." Churchill quipped: "Damned good disguise." I can certainly relate to that sentiment right now.

Nonetheless, we must keep moving forward. Let's continue our work to make an America as good as its promise. These are historic times. And we have a lot more history to make.

Sincerely,

Van Jones

Energy and Global Warming News for September 17: White House plays down talk of climate delay to 2010; India ready to issue non-binding emissions cut; Duke Energy CEO says "I actually can see a future where coal is not in the equation in 2050."

Posted: 17 Sep 2009 12:03 PM PDT

White House plays down talk of climate delay to 2010

The White House on Wednesday played down the possible impact of putting off major U.S. climate change legislation to 2010, vowing to press for progress on the issue ahead of global talks in December.

Asked whether a delay would amount to a setback for President Barack Obama's priorities on the issue, spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters: "No, I think we can continue to make progress."

"We've got to make progress and the international community's got to make progress getting China and India and developing nations, and evolving world economies like Brazil, on board," he said.

Gibbs spoke one day after Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid raised the prospects of putting off action on the legislation until 2010, only to have his chief spokesman say Democrats still sought action this year.

"We are going to have a busy, busy time the rest of this year," Reid said Tuesday. "And, of course, nothing terminates at the end of this year. We still have next year to complete things if we have to."

Asked about his comments, spokesman Jim Manley replied: "We are still committing to passing health care reform, regulatory reform and global warming legislation by the end of the year."

The U.S. House of Representatives passed its version of the legislation in June, and leaders of key Senate committees are due to unveil their version later this month after agreeing to a delay of a few weeks from a mid-September target date.

India says ready to issue non-binding emissions cut

India is ready to quantify the amount of planet-warming gas emissions it could cut with domestic actions to fight climate change, the environment minister said on Thursday, but will not accept internationally binding targets.

Jairam Ramesh's comment marks a shift in the position of India, which is under no obligation to cut emissions and is trying to reach out to rich nations by underscoring the actions it is taking to fight global warming.

The stand is likely to strengthen India's stance at crucial negotiations in Copenhagen in December on a treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which obliges 37 developed nations to cut emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

Talks are currently deadlocked on the question of levels of emission cuts to be taken by rich countries and developing nations. Rich nations will also have to come up with billions of dollars in aid and green technologies for the poor.

"We do not see a problem in giving a broad indicative number on the quantity of (emission) reduction as a result of our domestic unilateral actions," Ramesh told Reuters.

The emission reduction would not take the shape of legally binding targets open to outside scrutiny. Neither would it form a new negotiating position for India.

The minister described the new stand as a "nuanced shift" in India's position aimed at calling the bluff of rich countries which want growing economies such as India to take emissions targets because it is among the biggest polluters.

White House Wants Fuel Subsidy Cuts on G-20 Agenda

White House officials are calling for international efforts to end fuel and electric power subsidies as part of the agenda for next week's G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, according to a letter from a senior administration official.

The White House also says G-20 nations should take steps to improve oil market transparency and scale up financing for tackling climate change.

Michael Froman, the White House's deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, said in a Sept. 3 letter that cutting the subsidies would improve energy security and help fight climate change by encouraging conservation and boosting new technologies.

"The move away from subsidies should be managed to protect those most vulnerable to price increases," Froman wrote. "The G-20 should commit to take the lead in eliminating non-needs based fossil fuel and electricity subsidies and to provide technical assistance to non-G-20 countries taking steps to reduce fossil fuel and electricity subsidies."

A White House spokesperson could not be reached for comment about the letter, which is addressed to "colleagues."

Energy Secretary Chu Says Deep Emission Reductions Not Politically Achievable in US

Reuters has some interesting quotes from Energy Secretary Steven Chu on how we shouldn't undermine the post-Kyoto climate change treaty to be hammered out in Copenhagen in three months time by setting unachievable emission reductions targets. Unachievable politically, Chu means, and in the US:

"What the United States can bring and can agree to is certainly unknown but I think probably 40-30% (cuts) might be too aggressive for 2020 for the United States."

Chu is of course just talking about political feasibility. He's stated on a number of occasions that its technically possible to reduce emissions 30-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. It would be a "very aggressive" but "achievable" goal, he's quoted as saying in this particular Reuters piece.

Keep in mind that it's these sort of reductions that China, India, Brazil, several low-lying island nations, as well as a host of other developing nations are calling on the rich countries of the world to make. And keep in mind that these are the sort of reductions scientists say are required to keep temperature rise below 2°C — something which the US (as part of the G8) has agreed is a good goal, though doesn't seem to grasp what's required to achieve it.

Chu went on to say that setting lower targets and improving energy efficiency could essentially prove to people that green policies are not detrimental to the economy.

"If you could get all those gains in the first 20, 30 percent reduction in carbon, just by using energy efficiently, you can teach people that there is a path."

Fair enough, the value of energy efficiency seems to be sidelined sometimes in the climate debate in favor of more physically tangible renewable energy and infrastructure projects. But Chu's really dancing around the central issue here.

How China Thinks China Can Reduce Carbon Emissions

China has finally admitted it: It's current approach to growth is unsustainable.

There just aren't enough fossil fuels on the planet to support the developing country, says a Beijing think-tank, in a new report called "China's Low Carbon Development Pathways by 2050."

While this is not an official government report, Reuters says, "coming from a prominent institute that advises officials, it illuminates some of China's key concerns less than three months before the climate pact negotiations culminate in Copenhagen."

Chinese scientists laid out three sections to help their country achieve a low carbon solution:
1. Set greenhouse gas targets: the country should move towards a cap-and-trade market that buys and sells emissions. This would involve setting an absolute limit on emissions, a suggestion that may hurt economic growth.
2. Create carbon taxes: apply taxes to fossil fuels, natural gas, oil. The scientists propose a tax of 100 yuan ($14.6) for ever metric ton of carbon from 2010, and 200 yuan from 2030.
3. Energy market reforms: force coal-users to pay for environmental costs, and promote investment in clean energy.

The China Energy Research Institute, who wrote the report, doubts the world can keep its temperature increase below 2 degree Celsius, given the monstrous economic growth and energy consumption of the Asian giant. That ought to worry environmentalists hoping to stave off the effects of global warming.

With enough dedication and money, though, China's emissions could peak around 2030-2035 and fall to 2005 levels by 2050. If unchecked, its emissions in 2050 will be 3.3 billion tonnes of carbon a year. The world together emits 8.5 billion tonnes now.

Catholic agency: EU proposals on aid to fight climate change too low

European proposals to give developing countries up to 15 billion euros ($22 billion) a year to help them fight climate change have been branded immoral by a Catholic aid agency.

The English and Welsh bishops' Catholic Agency for Overseas Development wants the European Union to at least double the amount and to insist that the contributions of its 27 member states to combat climate change must be in addition to existing aid budgets.

The European Commission, which runs the European Union's day-to-day affairs, has suggested between 2 billion and 15 billion euros as a target annual contribution to be reached by 2020.

But Liz Gallagher, head of climate finance policy at CAFOD, said in a statement that the proposal, announced Sept. 9, "seriously lacks ambition" and that the figure should be in the region of 35 billion euros.

"The commission's communique is going for the lowest common denominator," she said in a Sept. 10 press statement.

"There is no mention that the money provided by rich countries must be additional to pledged aid levels," she said.

"The commission is neglecting its responsibility to compensate poor people for the damage our emissions have caused," she added. "Poor people will suffer the first and worst due to climate change and yet have done the least to cause it."

GE Energy to set up its 1st wind turbine unit in India

Power generator GE Energy today announced its plans to set up its first wind turbine generator plant in the country and help in shaping the nation's renewable energy agenda.

"It is a moment of great pride for all of us at GE as this is going to be our first wind turbuine generator plant in India. We appreciate the government's support in providing the project with necessary infrastructure to commence operations", GE India President and CEO T P Chopra said here on the occasion of 'GE Day' celebrations.

The plant would commence production in second half of 2010, he said.
The company's 1.5 XLE model wind turbine, most suited for India's low wind environment, would eventually grow its capacity to ship 300 wind turbines yearly in line with the growth in demand, Chopra said.
The facility would also enable GE Energy to create a larger sourcing base from India for critical items, including blades, towers, gear boxes, castings and forgings.

"Today India is ranked as the fifth largest market globally for wind power in terms of installed capacity and this will only elevate in years to come. This is an important time to be involved with wind energy and in helping to shape the future of our nation's renewable energy agenda," he said.

"With our decision to set up a wind turbine generator plant, we want to make sure that we fully capitalise of opportunities available," he added.

EU calls on US to do more to tackle climate change

The United States must do more to tackle climate change, the EU presidency said Wednesday, in a challenge to President Barack Obama ahead of a key international summit in Pittsburgh.

"I hope to speed up the talks all over the climate issue," Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said in online comments, the day before a EU summit Brussels.

While acknowledging a promise by Japan's incoming prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, to target 25 percent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, Reinfeldt has been less impressed by Washington's efforts so far.

"We need also clearer signals from the United States on mitigation efforts," as well as other parts of the developed world, Reinfeldt said.

The European Union prides itself on taking the lead in the battle against climate change, with member states agreeing to make 20 percent cuts in CO2 emissions by 2020 from 1990 levels.

EU leaders are seeking a more ambitious global goal at international climate change talks in Copenhagen in December, and are ready to commit to 30 percent cuts if the rest of the world does likewise to attain the overall goal of restricting global warming to two degrees Celsius.

Duke Energy CEO Questions Viability of 'Clean' Coal Technology, Future of Coal

Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, raised questions on Wednesday about the viability of capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants underground, and suggested that coal may not even be part of the energy mix by 2050.

"I actually can see a future where coal is not in the equation in 2050," Rogers told reporters at an event in Washington.

He argued that it's unlikely that the United States will be able to develop and bring to scale carbon-capture-and-storage – often called "clean coal" technology. "I think there's no way we can scale in this country," he said. "It's more likely that China will develop and bring CCS to scale. I'd like to be China for a day so we can get CCS done. They're more likely to get it scaled and deployed than we are. We're going to be buying their technology."

He also acknowledged that concerns about coal extraction methods like mountaintop removal may make coal more expensive in the near-term. "I'm under incredible pressure on moutaintop mining," said Rogers. "Most of the coal we use in the southern part of the country is from mountaintop mining. I'm doing the math now and looking to determine my contracts and posing the question to my team, what if we made a policy decision that we're not going to buy coal as a consequence of mountaintop mining."

The future of mountaintop removal grew less certain last week as the Obama administration put the breaks on 79 surface mining permits in Appalachia. Rogers also cited concerns about the amount of space and infrastructure that would be needed to make CCS a reality, as well as concerns about the viability of storage. Instead, he says he foresees nuclear rising to become the biggest source of baseload power by 2050, along with solar and "a little wind," and improved efficiency.

"On the time horizon, I have a higher probability of coming up with the next generation recycling [of nuclear waste], and it's manageable," he said. He argued that the spent fuel from the last 40 years from every nuclear power plant in the United States could be put on one football field, stacked seven feet high. But he said his company's calculations have found that even storage of 20 percent of carbon emissions would require ten cubic miles over the life of a power plant.

Worst headline of the week — "Vilsack: Climate change could help rural economies"

Posted: 17 Sep 2009 11:57 AM PDT

No, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack did NOT say global warming would be good for rural communities.

What he said was that taking action on global warming would be good for rural communities, as the rest of The Journal Record's article makes clear:

He also called climate change an opportunity, because the first country to develop technologies to deal with widespread changes in the environment and move those innovations into the market will be recognized as a worldwide winner.

Vilsack knows that the climate change from unrestricted greenhouse gases emissions would be a disaster for farmers (see "A Stormy Forecast for U.S. Agriculture"). Oklahoma would do worse than most, probably becoming a permanent dust bowl in the second half of the century. Vilsack has testified that the economic benefits of climate bill for farmers 'easily trump' the costs.

The story isn't bad, but the headline is dreadful — and that's a problem because many people don't ever get past the headline. The headline could have been "Vilsack: Action on climate change could help rural economies" or "Vilsack: Fighting climate change could help rural economies."

The paper's "About Us" section asserts:

Our mission: To be Oklahoma's foremost influential and trusted information service.

Our commitment: To serve our audiences with quality products and timely, accurate information that helps them gain success..

Not quite there, folks.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Saturday, September 19, 2009

OTHER MAIN SITES

Path to Dec 7-18 talks in Copenhagen.

Homeearth Security Sites

TOOLS

About Me

SiteMeter