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:

Read 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.