Climate Progress

So PG has a typical post attacking Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) for trying to drag the car industry into the 21st Century with fuel economy standards.

The post is notable for a double howler. PG’s Henry Payne starts by attacking Reid’s history of the auto industry, saying “Reid presumes to lecture automakers on their own history.” And then he presumes to claim:

Of course, it’s Ford’s ingenuity that invented the gas engine, a vastly superior technology to steam and electrics that has given Americans unprecedented freedom. It remains superior today (along with oil-cousin diesel) even against new challengers like biofuel.

Uhh, no. Not even close. ROTFLMAO, as they say. Ford’s big contribution was inventing the moving assembly line around 1913, decades after the gas engine was invented. And it would probably stun Payne to learn that

Henry Ford’s Model T was the first flexible-fuel vehicle, running on gas, ethanol or both, and the automaker foretold the future when he said fuel could be gotten from fruit, weeds, sawdust, or anything else that could be fermented.

PG just makes stuff up to support their position. They should spend even a few seconds with Google fact-checking before lambasting Reid with mistakes that egregious.

So who did invent the gasoline engine? A lot of folks claim credit, but I’d vote for three people.

(more…)

Automakers eye House after fuel fight - Washington Post. What we all view as success, tougher fuel economy standards, automakers view as defeat. They are looking to weaken the standards in the House. Here’s hoping they fail.

Norway Says Will Slash CO2 Emissions at Home - Reuters. Norway said on Friday that domestic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions would account for between half and two-thirds of “the world’s most ambitious climate goal” — achieving zero net emissions of CO2 by 2050.

China Drought Causes Water Shortages for Millions - Reuters. “Drought affecting large swathes of China has left more than 8 million people short of water.” The country is experiencing weather extremes: The dry weather conditions in some parts contrasts with flooding in the south. Torrential rains have killed at least 76 people and destroyed hundreds of thousands of hectares of rice crops.

Slate’s Emily Yoffe shows just how successful the Denyers’ disinformation campaign has been. Here is what she wrote in the Washington Post today:

Since I hate the heat, even I was alarmed by the recent headline: “NASA Warns of 110-Degrees for Atlanta, Chicago, DC in Summer.” But I regained my cool when I realized the forecast was for close to the end of the century. Thanks to all the heat-mongering, it’s supposed to be a sign I’m in denial because I refuse to trust a weather prediction for August 2080, when no one can offer me one for August 2008 (or 2007 for that matter).

There is so much hubris in the certainty about the models of the future that I’m oddly reassured. We’ve seen how hubristic predictions about complicated, unpredictable events have a way of bringing the predictors low.

It’s also hard to believe assertions that the science on the future of our climate is settled when climate scientists can’t agree about the present – or the past (there is contention about the dates, causes and even the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that followed).

Sad that a smart writer like Yoffe would buy into 4 or 5 major Denyer talking points by my count, including the infamous: “we can’t predict the weather, therefore, we can’t predict the climate” — a favorite of Michael Crichton’s.

These myths are all debunked here, a valuable resource I will comment more on later in the week.

Note that Yoffe is right that “hubristic predictions about complicated, unpredictable events have a way of bringing the predictors low” — but that could just as easily apply to predictions (like hers) that we don’t have to worry about climate change. I’ll stick with the predictions of climate scientists, especially since they have so far underestimated climate impacts and feedbacks.

The Senate has shown it can take pretty strong action on energy security, with the first boost to fuel economy standards in three decades. But where is the action on a far more serious issue?

E&E News has a long, thoughtful article on the subject, “Grumbling about Boxer continues as EPW panel returns to hearings.” A subscription is required, but I’ll post the whole article below the fold, as it were.

The bottom line of the story? Critics of Boxer “have started to grumble in private that she has lost a handle on the climate issue and may soon be outpaced by other committees and political events surrounding the 2008 presidential election.”

I agree with those who say that getting 60 votes in the Senate for a cap & trade is tough — and getting serious legistlation enacted while Bush is President, even tougher. But the key issues need to be put on the national agenda in time for them to become a major part of the presidential debate — in both party primaries and then the general election. That is the only way to ensure the country is behind serious action starting in 2009.

If progressives can’t win on the climate change issue in 2008, when will they be able to?

Here’s the whole story:

(more…)

One of the most quoted statistics in energy is that the country has a 250-year supply of coal. But is a true? A congressionally mandated report from the National Research Council casts doubt. From the press release:

It is clear that there is enough coal at current rates of production to meet anticipated needs through 2030, and probably enough for 100 years, the committee said. However, it is not possible to confirm the often-quoted assertion that there is a sufficient supply for the next 250 years.

The New York Times puts it this way: Science Panel Finds Fault With Estimates of Coal Supply.

You can find the study and a summary here.

I’m sure this does not come as a big shock — but it isn’t the President. Still, Rolling Stone has unearthed “thousands of pages of internal documents” detailing the full extent of the malevolent role played by the Vice President — hey they don’t call him Vice for nothing!

It is no secret that industry-connected appointees within the White House have worked actively to distort the findings of federal climate scientists, playing down the threat of climate change. But a new investigation by Rolling Stone reveals that those distortions were sanctioned at the highest levels of our government, in a policy formulated by the vice president, implemented by the White House Council on Environmental Quality and enforced by none other than Karl Rove.

The article is coincident with the launch of a 20,000-word, 4-part series by the Washington Post delving into Cheney’s power, how he spies on White House staffers, and how “Stealth is among Cheney’s most effective tools.”

What kinds of things did Cheney do on climate?

(more…)

Even from abroad, you can see the United Kingdom’s internal gears cranking, investigating global warming solutions and mapping out their strategy.

London’s mayor has recently announced a climate change plan to encourage residents (7.5 million of them) and local businesses to choose green options for power generation and use. The scale of the city and the committment, which is to cut emissions 60% in the next two decades, is an unprecedented combination.

Similarly, the UK government has circulated a Draft Climate Change Bill and is open to suggestions for the next six months. The bill is agressive and unique in that it calls for short-, medium-, and long-term targets. Ultimately, the UK aims to cut its emissions by 60% by 2050. In order to monitor its progress, the country proposes budget periods of 5 years each that are established for the successive fifteen years. Their technique is meant to give emitters flexibility within 5-year increments but a clear idea of the future allowances.

All of this in the context of a new EU pledge to generate 20% of its power from green sources and to cut emissions by at least 20% below 1990 levels (30% if others join). Of course there is still a lot left to be discussed and decided - but are we behind or what?

In an article on Barack Obama’s $5 million coal-to-liquid earmark:

But going from coal to fuel is viewed, said the Center for American Progress’s Joe Romm, as “phenomenally expensive, and using a huge amount of water and releasing an enormous amount of greenhouse gases.”

The Politico gets the story right: If you’re going to capture and store carbon, you should make zero-carbon electricity, not high-carbon diesel fuel.

Washington Post: The First Major Change in Fuel Efficiency Law since 1975. “The Senate passed a sweeping energy legislation package last night that would mandate the first substantial change in the nation’s vehicle fuel-efficiency law since 1975 despite opposition from auto companies and their Senate supporters. After three days of intense debate and complex maneuvering, Democratic leaders won passage of the bill shortly before midnight by a 65 to 27 vote.”

Wall Street Journal (subs. req’d): Democrats Achieve “Sweeping” Energy Legislation. “The Senate, voting 65-27, approved sweeping energy legislation that would increase fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, provide tax incentives for development of alternative fuels and require far greater use of ethanol and other so-called renewable automotive fuels…The measure was on hold for hours last night as supporters rounded up senators, many of whom had already left their Capitol offices for the day. Early in the evening, senators on a quick voice vote approved higher automobile fuel-economy standards, an important step toward the first increases in more than two decades and a major defeat for Detroit’s Big Three auto makers.” (Wall Street Journal, 6/22/07)

New York Times: Democrats fight off push by car manufacturers, achieve victory. “The Senate passed a broad energy bill late Thursday that would, among other things, require the first big increase in fuel mileage requirements for passenger cars in more than two decades. The vote, 65 to 27, was a major defeat for car manufacturers, which had fought for a much smaller increase in fuel economy standards and is expected to keep fighting as the House takes up the issue.”

The Senate Energy Bill passed yesterday 65-27. It doesn’t warrant an “A” grade because proponents failed to pass

• A requirement for utilities to provide 15 percent of their electric power from renewable sources by 2020, and
• An energy tax package that would have created $30 billion in incentives for renewable power, biofuels, plug-in hybrids, and other clean technologies.

Still, the bill deserves a solid “B” for what is in it. Here are the major components, from the office of Jeff Bingaman (D-NM):

Increases Auto Mileage for First Time in Decades. It raises auto fuel economy to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40% increase over current requirements for cars, SUVs, vans and pickup trucks.

Increases Production of Ethanol. It requires ethanol fuel production to grow to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase over the amount of ethanol processed last year.

Spurs Research on Fuel-Efficient Vehicles. It provides federal grants and loan guarantees to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles and supports pilot coal-plant projects to capturecarbon dioxide and store it underground.

Saves Taxpayer Dollars By Increasing Energy Efficiency. The bill includes new appliance and lighting efficiency standards plus a requirement that the federal government accelerate use of more efficient lighting in public buildings.

Here are some comments on the Bill, first from Bingaman’s office, then from Richard Lugar’s (R-IN):

(more…)