In a major victory for the climate yesterday:

A federal judge in Vermont on Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2007, has rejected automakers’ claims that new state emissions standards designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are pre-empted by federal law and that technology can’t be developed to meet them.

The standards require a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks by 2016, which translates to an average fuel economy for cars and light trucks of nearly 44 miles per gallon. In the conclusion to his 240-page ruling, Judge William Sessions III, smacked the automakers upside their collective heads:

“History suggests that the ingenuity of the industry, once put in gear, responds admirably to most technological challenges. In light of the public statements of industry representatives, (the) history of compliance with previous technological challenges, and the state of the record, the court remains unconvinced automakers cannot meet the challenges of Vermont and California’s GHG regulations.”

In your face, Big Three! During the 16-day trial, NASA’s James Hansen was one of the expert witnesses. He sent out an e-mail today noting, “It was a special experience to see the team that made the case for Vermont, and a pleasure to see that they got their just desserts.”

As yet more evidence of Hansen’s position as a leading climate scientist, the judge relied heavily on the NASA scientist for his opinion. For those who want a good non-technical translation of Hansen’s argument, read pages 31-37 (excerpted below). There is also a fascinating explanation (pages 38-47) by the judge on why he rejects plaintiffs’ assertion that Hansen’s testimony is not reliable or relevant, in spite of the best effort of the plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert, famed denier Dr. John Christy — yes, it is utterly pathetic that the car companies would bring this guy as an expert witness to rebut Hansen; it really shows how little they care about the planet’s future. I will return to this explanation in the debunking of Lomborg.

Read more

With all the bad news about mortgages, it is time for some good news: Mortgages that promote energy efficiency are on the rise.

The basic idea is simple. If you make your home more energy efficient, you reduce your monthly energy bill. And that means you have more money to pay your mortgage, and are less likely to default, so lenders are wisely encouraging this:

The Wall Street Journal (subs. req’d) has a very good article on this:

Read more

About a week ago, Climate Progress posted on the three major hurdles for an Energy Bill to succeed in this Congress: substantive, procedural and presidential hurdles.

Since then, policymakers have fallen pessimistic and frankly so.

Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has stated, “I don’t know if there is going to be an energy bill conference.” (E&E Daily, subs. req’d) Because the content of the two bills is so drastically different, the chance of conferencing one energy bill while Congress also struggles with the housing market crisis and the Iraq war (among others) is quickly dimming.

Procedurally, policymakers could choose one of two routes:

1) Still try to conference the energy bill, even though folks on the Hill don’t expect conference leaders to be appointed until late October, at the earliest; or

2) Rework legislation outside the conference. Basically, that means passing another bill that mirrors an existing one, but this option is subject to the political delayer’s blab tactic – too much talk, and no time for action (i.e. Senate filibuster).

Oil hits $80 a barrell, climate change is accelerating, and we can’t get legislation to push efficiency, renewables, and fuel economy? What have we elected these bozos for??

But what would you expect from an oil company?

And I’m not just saying this because I only scored 10,156th out of 46,810 players on my third try.

On the postive side, the game seems to push energy efficiency and renewable energy.

On the minus side, Chrevon — and The Economist – seem unaware that hydrogen is not a primary energy source. Also, they include oil shale, which is an even less likely energy source than hydrogen, if that’s possible.

For debunkers, Lomborg’s work is a target-rich environment. There is even a Lomborg-errors website, where a Danish biologist catalogs Lomborg’s mistakes and “attempts to document his dishonesty.” Lomborg’s latest work of disinformation, Cool It, isn’t out yet in Europe to be debunked, so I’ll fill the gap for now.

I will start with polar bears for two reasons. First, the non-ironic reason: Lomborg starts his book with a chapter on polar bears, presumably because he thinks it’s one of his strongest arguments — it isn’t.

Second, the ironic reason. “Bj¸rn” means “bear”!! Yes, “Bear” Lomborg is misinformed about his namesake. Lomborg himself notes (p. 4)

Paddling across the ice, polar bears are beautiful animals. To Greenland — part of my own nation, Denmark — They are a symbol of pride. The loss of this animal would be a tragedy. But the real story of the polar bear is instructive. In many ways, this tale encapsulates the broader problem with the climate-change concern: once you look closely at the supporting data, the narrative falls apart.

Doubly ironic, then, that the polar bear is doomed thanks to people like Bear Lomborg, who urge inaction. Lomborg says (p. 7) polar bears “may eventually decline, though dramatic declines seem unlikely.” Uhh, no. Even the Bush Administration’s own USGS says we’ll lose 2/3 of the world’s current polar bear population by 2050 in a best-case scenario for Arctic ice.

How will the bears survive the loss of their habitat? No problem, says Lomborg, they will evolve backwards (p. 6):

[T]hey will increasingly take up a lifestyle similar to that of brown bears, from which they evolved.

Seriously. Yet, Wikipedia notes:

According to both fossil and DNA evidence, the polar bear diverged from the brown bear roughly 200 thousand years ago; fossils show that between 10 and 20 thousand years ago the polar bear’s molar teeth changed significantly from those of the brown bear.

Doh! Lomborg is giving the bears a few decades to undo tens of thousands of years of evolution. In fact, most experts do not believe the bears can survive the loss of their habitat:

Read more

These are the winners of the 16th International Children’s’ Painting Competition on the Environment. This year’s theme was climate change.

The works speak for themselves, but the children who created them also wrote eloquent statements. The winner (top) is by 12 year-old Charlie Sullivan of the United Kingdom, who writes:

Read more