“The Web's most influential climate-change blogger” — Time Magazine A Project of Center for American Progress Action Fund

Archive for January, 2009

Conservatives need laughter, too, even if it makes the rest of us cry

Saturday, January 31st, 2009

Given how many progressive political cartoons I publish, I thought it only fair to show one of the regressive ones, too. After all, just because people block the kind of fuel economy standards that would have forced Detroit to build more of the cars that people actually want, reduced our dependence on oil, and cut climate-destroying emissions, doesn’t mean they don’t have a sense of humor.

stantis.jpg

Yes, wanting to cut oil use, emissions, and consumer fuel bills is no different than wanting to have 50 steering wheels per car. Our President is so dumb!

I guess this is what people in Birmingham, Alabama think is funny. Yes, Birmingham. It is so sad it is funny, no?

A few more thoughts upon reflecting on this cartoon while taking my daughter to the park.

(more…)

U.S. Energy Policy, Part 2: It is what it themes

Saturday, January 31st, 2009

[It may seem a tad late to be running Bill's 3-part critique of the stimulus (Part 1 here). But the proposals below that didn't make the stimulus are exactly the kind that should be included in the mother of all energy bills that will be developed and enacted later this year.]

The best part of the economic stimulus package moving through Congress is that it calls for a significant down payment on a new energy economy. One of its weaknesses is that it doesn’t give the American people a clear and exciting vision for what that new economy can do.

(more…)

Canadian bishop challenges the “moral legitimacy” of tar sands production

Friday, January 30th, 2009

http://www.ienearth.org/images/oil_sands_open_pit_mining.thumbnail.jpgThe Catholic bishop whose diocese extends over the tar sands has posted a scathing pastoral letter, “The Integrity of Creation and the Athabasca Oil Sands.”

The letter by Bishop Luc Bouchard concludes, “even great financial gain does not justify serious harm to the environment,” and “the present pace and scale of development in the Athabasca oil sands cannot be morally justified.” Equally powerful is who the letter is addressed to:

The critical points made in this letter are not directed to the working people of Fort McMurray but to oil company executives in Calgary and Houston, to government leaders in Edmonton and Ottawa, and to the general public whose excessive consumerist lifestyle drives the demand for oil.

We have met the enemy and he is us!

Other than sticking with the euphemism “oil sands” (see “Canada tries to tar-sandbag Obama on climate” the remarkably detailed and heavily footnoted letter is a brilliant piece of work dissecting what has been called the “biggest global warming crime ever seen.”

Bishop Bouchard notes that “The environmental liabilities that result from the various steps in this process are significant and include”:

  • Destruction of the boreal forest eco-system
  • Potential damage to the Athabasca water shed
  • The release of greenhouse gases
  • Heavy consumption of natural gas
  • The creation of toxic tailings ponds

He writes at length on all five, and concludes

Any one of the above destructive effects provokes moral concern, but it is when the damaging effects are all added together that the moral legitimacy of oil sands production is challenged.

Here is what he says specifically about greenhouse gases:

(more…)

World’s Glaciers Shrink for 18th Year

Friday, January 30th, 2009

Like the Wicked Witch of the West, the world is melting.

The University of Zurich’s World Glacier Monitoring Service reports that in 2006 and 2007 that the world’s glaciers lost 2 meters (2000 mm) of thickness on average:

glacier-2009.jpg

They note, “The new data continues the global trend in accelerated ice loss over the past few decades.” The rate of ice loss is twice as fast as a decade ago.

This is consistent with other recent research (see Another climate impact comes faster than predicted: Himalayan glaciers “decapitated” and AGU 2008: Two trillion tons of land ice lost since 2003 and links below).

Bloomberg has an excellent story on report:

(more…)

Turkey’s only bidder for first nuclear plant offers a price of 21 cents per kilowatt-hour

Friday, January 30th, 2009

New nuclear power is going to be very expensive — no matter where the plants are built. The most detailed and transparent recent cost study on the new generation of plants put the cost of power at 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour — triple current U.S. electricity rates (see “Exclusive analysis, Part 1: The staggering cost of new nuclear power“).

Some have suggested that other countries will fare better — in spite of Finland’s nightmarish nuclear troubles (see “Satanic nukes? Finnish plant’s cost overruns to $6.66 billion” and below). They should read the story in today’s Today’s Zaman, Turkey’s largest English-language newspaper:

The only company bidding, the Russian-Turkish JSC Atomstroyexport-JSC Inter Rao Ues-Park Teknik joint venture, offered a price of 21.16 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Current electricity prices in the country vary between 4 cents and 14 cents per kWh.

[Wholesale prices in Turkey are 7.9 cents per kWh.]

That gives new meaning to the word “turkey.”

(more…)

Bathroom (climate) humor

Friday, January 30th, 2009

The terrific climate cartoonist Marc Roberts directs us to a series of cartoons he did in 2007. They put the bathtub analogy that Revkin and I blogged on in context (see here):

throb-bubble.jpg

(more…)

Senate stimulus plan out-greens the House

Thursday, January 29th, 2009

Today’s guest post on the green details of the Senate and House stimulus plans (with awesome bubble charts) is by Daniel J. Weiss and Alexandra Kougentakis. It was originally printed on the Center for American Progress website here.

senate_stimulus_onpage.jpg

On January 28, the House of Representatives passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 1, by a vote of 244 to 188. The $819 billion recovery bill includes $72 billion for clean energy programs, and another $20 billion for clean energy tax incentives. This huge investment in weatherization, efficiency, transmission, transit, and clean vehicles programs will create at least 459,000 jobs by the end of 2010, as well as reduce oil consumption and global warming pollution.

Not to be outdone, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed the American Investment and Recovery Plan, S. 336, which includes $78 billion* in clean energy spending as part of its $365 billion recovery package. At the same time the Senate Finance Committee passed a $522 billion tax package that includes $31 billion in tax incentives for renewables and energy efficiency. The bills will likely be joined before Senate floor consideration.

(more…)

The best climate blog you aren’t reading

Thursday, January 29th, 2009

I know the climate junkies out there are reading RealClimate and DeSmogBlog and all The New Top 10 Climate Blogs.

But I’d like to direct you to Greenfyre’s, which Alexa suggests folks aren’t reading (yet). I was first taken by the blog of biologist Mike Kaulbars when I saw the post “Global Warming is over! once every decade or so …” which had this great figure:

Global Warming ends every decade or so ...

It’s always cooling, except, of course, when it’s not.

If you have your own hidden gem of a climate blog — an internet geode, as it were — I’d love to hear about it.

Economic Stimulus, Part 1: 16% Green?

Thursday, January 29th, 2009

Congress is expected to give final approval to a massive economic stimulus package in the next couple of weeks. But before it does, there’s important work to be done on the color and content of the package. Lawmakers should address three questions:

  • Is the package green enough?
  • Is it visionary enough?
  • Can the beneficiaries handle the money?

I’ll offer some thoughts on each of these questions in a three-part post, starting with the green issue.

(more…)

Harvard economist: Climate cost-benefit analyses are “unusually misleading,” warns colleagues “we may be deluding ourselves and others”

Thursday, January 29th, 2009

Harvard economist Martin Weitzman published an important analysis last year in which he explained why conventional economic analyses of climate change are “arbitrarily inaccurate.”

The first draft of the paper had said the vast majority of such analyses should carry the following label:

“WARNING: to be used ONLY for cost-benefit analysis of non-extreme climate change possibilities. NOT INTENDED to cover welfare evaluation of extreme tail possibilities, for which a complete accounting might produce ARBITRARILY DIFFERENT welfare outcomes.”

The final version, “On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change,” eliminated that disclaimer, but replaced it with a longer statement that is equally devastating (see below).

Weitzman’s bottom line: If you don’t factor in plausible extreme-impact scenarios — and the vast majority of economic analyses don’t (this means you, William Nordhaus, and you, too, Richard Tol) — your analysis is worse than useless. It is delusional. Pretty strong stuff for a Harvard economist!

fat-tail.gifThe extreme or fat tail of the damage function (click on figure at right) represents what Weitzman calls “rare climate disasters,” although as we’ll see, they aren’t rare at all, they are near certain with business-as-usual emissions. For Weitzman, disaster is a temperature change of > 6°C (11°F) in a century, as he explains in an earlier paper on the Stern Review on the economics of climate change:

(more…)

Q: Do vegetarians have better sex?

Thursday, January 29th, 2009

A: I don’t know since I’m not a vegetarian. Anyone out there switch from carnivore to vegetarian or vice versa and can therefore offer an unscientific sample?

I am of course referring to PETA’s banned Superbowl ad, which, though rather over-the-top in its depiction of intimacy between human and produce, is hardly more explicit than what the networks routinely show in Victoria’s Secret ads (let alone Victoria’s Secret TV show) and is certainly not in worse taste than, say, half the network schedule. If our children can be subjected to a TV show in which the hero is a serial killer, or in which semi-naked models are dressed as angels or the torture-du-jour on 24, they can probably survive a model rubbing a pumpkin against her torso:


‘Veggie Love’: PETA’s Banned Super Bowl Ad

This may be the origin of the nursery rhyme:

PETA PETA pumpkin eater,
Had a wife but couldn’t keep her.
He put her in a pumpkin shell,
And there he kept her very well.

Or not.

The Washington Post TV columnist opines that the ad was intended to be banned, to get the free publicity. Why not?

[Now you know the real reason I wrote the earlier post -- Scientific American: Beef contributes 13 times the greenhouse gas impact of chicken, 57x potatoes: to provide some minimal justification for this post.]

Breaking: House passes Obama’s (green) stimulus package with nary a GOP vote

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

The NYT reports on Obama’s 244-188 win:

Without a single Republican vote, President Obama won House approval on Thursday for an $819 billion economic recovery plan….

As a piece of legislation, the two-year package is among the biggest in history, reflecting a broad view in Congress that urgent fiscal help is needed for an economy in crisis, and at a time when the Federal Reserve has already cut interest rates almost to zero….

All but 11 Democrats voted for the plan and 177 Republicans voted against it.

If the House R’s won’t vote for the only stimulus on the table during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, it’s hard to see how they are going to vote for a serious bill addressing the climate problem, whose existence they don’t even acknowledge and opposition to which they see as a political winner (see The conservative stagnation, Part 12: Cap & trade bill will return GOP to power “in 2010″).

So be it (see “Q: Does a cap & trade bill have to be bipartisan?“).

Inhofe and Morano keep making stuff up, this time utterly misquoting Revkin on Hansen

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

Once again, the office of Sen. James Inhofe (Denier-OK) has put out a press release riddled with misstatements, this one attacking the nation’s top climate scientist James Hansen.

Their last release was notable for the outright lies and distortions by Inhofe and his top staffer, Marc Morano (see Scientist: “Our conclusions were misinterpreted” by Inhofe, CO2 — but not the sun — “is significantly correlated” with temperature since 1850 and Inhofe recycles long-debunked denier talking points — will the media be fooled (again)?)

Now they are making stuff up about Hansen, claiming the Bush Administration did not try to muzzle him, when they clearly did, as the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee documented in a December 2007 report. Somehow I think that report, which is based on “over 27,000 pages of documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Commerce Department,” two investigative hearings, and the depositions and interviews of key officials is a tad more credible than the words of some former NASA engineer.

It is absurd for Inhofe to have a blaring headline that “Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor” says Hansen “was never muzzled,” when this guy does not appear to have been Hansen’s supervisor (he “did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation,” an authority possessed by every supervisor I ever had in government — see also NASA’s Gavin Schmidt here) — and in any case, had a position above Hansen only from 1982-1994, a full decade before the muzzling occurred!

I don’t want to waste a lot of time debunking pathological make-stuff-uppers like Inhofe and Morano, but let me point out one representative lie. The Morano post blares:

NYT’s Revkin chides Hansen for promoting sea level claims that are not ‘even physically possible’

But let’s go the link and see what Revkin actually wrote.

(more…)

Scientific American: Beef contributes 13 times the greenhouse gas impact of chicken, 57x potatoes

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

SciAm reports that

  • Pound for pound, beef production generates greenhouse gases that contribute more than 13 times as much to global warming as do the gases emitted from producing chicken. For potatoes, the multiplier is 57.
  • Beef consumption is rising rapidly, both as population increases and as people eat more meat.
  • Producing the annual beef diet of the average American emits as much greenhouse gas as a car driven more than 1,800 miles.

I primarily focus on technology-based solutions since they can be the basis of government policy and since many websites are devoted to personal behavior choices, like No Impact Man.

Behavior-based strategies really only work at large scale when societal values change (and/or prices jump) sharply, which is certainly inevitable in the coming years as more and more people come to grips with the increasingly painful reality of human-caused global warming (see “What are the near-term climate Pearl Harbors?“) and realize just how immoral it is to maintain current levels of GHG emissions per capita at the expense of the next 50 generations to walk the earth (NOAA stunner: Climate change “largely irreversible for 1000 years,” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe).

For a good article on how one meat-loving environmentalist has changed his behavior, see Mike Tidwell’s “The Low-Carbon Diet.”

Revkin has leading system dynamics expert Sterman on NOAA’s 1,000-years-of-hell paper

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

I am a big fan of MIT’s John Sterman, one of the world’s leading experts on systems thinkers.

In a post on “The Greenhouse Effect and the Bathtub Effect,” Revkin notes that Sterman’s work trying to reduce the biggest source of climate confusion is related to the new NOAA-led paper that I discussed here: Climate change “largely irreversible for 1000 years,” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe.

The bathtub analogy is that while atmospheric concentrations (the total stock of CO2 already in the air) might be thought of as the water level in the bathtub, emissions (the yearly new flow into the air) are the rate of water flowing into a bathtub. We need to lower the level, not just the flow. A great video clarifying the issue is here. It is narrated by my friend Andrew Jones. If you want to play the simulation itself, go here.

Revkin got Sterman’s comments on the paper, which I am reposting below:

(more…)

Gore testifying at 10 am today, Wednesday, as global warming hits the Capitol and the planet hard

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

UPDATE: Gore testimony below.

Nobelist Al Gore is testifying today in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on “The Road to Copenhagen.” You can watch the live video stream here.

We are having a snow and ice storm in DC today, so of course that leading science blog the Drudge Report went nuts with a banner headline:

GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE

Drudge quotes an unnamed “Republican lawmaker” as emailing him, “I can’t imagine the Democrats would want to showcase Mr. Gore and his new findings on global warming as a winter storm rages outside.” Seriously, do GOP lawmakers have nothing better to do than email Matt Drudge about the local weather?

Salon’s response, “Breaking news: Despite global warming, snow still exists” put it well:

(more…)

Next stop: EPA’s endangerment finding

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

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

Stopped EPA from blocking California’s effort to regulate tailpipe GHG emissions. Check!

Stopped a new coal plant. Check!

The next “stop” on the Obama Climate Action Train is the “endangerment finding” so the EPA can finally put a stop on greenhouse gases.

In Massachusetts [vs. EPA], the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are “pollutants” under the Clean Air Act; that EPA must determine whether GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles do or do not endanger public health or welfare, or supply a reason for not making this determination; and that, if EPA makes an “endangerment finding,” it must issue regulations.

The key question: Can elevated levels of GHG concentrations be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare? Does the Pope buy papal indulgences carbon offsets?

This is not a tough call for a President who just said: “climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe.” And for 1,000 years! Indeed, he campaigned on this very issue (see the October 16 post, “Obama to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant“).

In an email to EPA employees, Administrator Lisa Jackson wrote of “five priorities that will receive my personal attention” — the first of which is “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions”:

(more…)

U.S. wind energy grows by record 8,300 MW

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009

wind-turbines-in-texas.jpg

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) announced the remarkable news today:

The U.S. wind energy industry shattered all previous records in 2008 by installing 8,358 megawatts (MW) of new generating capacity (enough to serve over 2 million homes).

Half of that was brought online in the fourth quarter, and so I expect stories in big media touting how well alternative energy has been weathering the brutal economic storm — as if (see “Global recession? Must be time for the media’s alternative-energy backlash“).

Still, the AWEA report made clear that there could be tough times ahead, unless Congress takes strong action on tax credits (see “House Ways & Means embraces refundable renewable tax credits“):

(more…)

Arctic sea ice drops below 2007 levels

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009

Arctic sea ice extent just dipped below January 2007 levels in the last few days, according to the daily time series from the National Snow and Ice Data Center(NSIDC):

http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

The NSIDC notes that they are showing the data from 2007 on this figure since that year “went on to reach the lowest summer minimum in the satellite record” (see “Arctic Ice shrinks by an Alaska plus a Texas“).

The NSIDC also has an interesting 2008 Year-in-Review for cryosphere buffs. It explains why the ice stopped growing for a week in mid-December. It also has an interesting graphic comparing the Arctic sea ice extent in 2008 with 2007 :

(more…)

A global-warming-denying Bush official burrows in at the NSF

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009

Think Progress reports:

Kathie Olsen — a global warming denying Bush official at the National Science Foundation — has entrenched herself into the agency prior to the arrival of the Obama administration. A congressional investigation said Olsen’s action “raises serious questions concerning whether a high-level Bush White House science appointee is trying to ‘burrow in‘ at the agency.”

The whole sad story, from Talking Points Memo, is below:

(more…)