The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released its annual Arctic report card with grim findings:

Temperature increases, a near-record loss of summer sea ice, and a melting of surface ice in Greenland are among some of the evidence of continued warming in the Arctic, according to an annual review of conditions in the Arctic issued today by NOAA….

One example of these changes in arctic climate is the autumn air temperatures which are at a record 5 degrees C (9 degrees F) above normal, because of the major loss of sea ice in recent years. The loss of sea ice allows more solar heating of the ocean. That warming of the air and ocean affects land and marine life, and reduces the amount of winter sea ice that lasts into the following summer. The year 2007 was the warmest on record for the Arctic, continuing a general Arctic-wide warming trend that began in the mid-1960s.

Significantly, NASA attempts to include some of this astonishing Arctic warming in its global temperature data set, whereas the UK’s Hadley Center excludes this area — a key reason NASA estimates “2005 was the warmest since records began, with 1998 and 2007 tied in second place” whereas Hadley has 1998 as the warmest year on record (see “Yes, the planet has kept warming since 1998“). The misperception that the planet stopped warming in 1998 stems more from our limited number of temperature stations in the Arctic than from any genuine trend.

The TV coverage I saw of the NOAA report (on ABC tonight) emphasized the Greenland results:

Warming has continued around Greenland in 2007, culminating in record setting (since 1970s) melt area and amplified absorption of solar radiation. Greenland’s largest glacier, among a majority of others, continued its retreat. The ice sheet lost at least 100 cubic km (24 cubic miles) of ice, making it one of the largest single contributors to global sea level rise.

But I think the tundra report is at least as significant, since we know that the rapid loss of the Arctic sea ice and the soaring Arctic temperatures is accelerating us toward the most dangerous climate threshold (see “Tundra 4: Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss“). As a recent study found, “simulated western Arctic land warming trends during rapid sea ice loss are 3.5 times greater than secular 21st century climate-change trends. The accelerated warming signal penetrates up to 1500 km inland.”

That was a simulation. NOAA’s report card has an analysis that confirms the grim reality on the ground:

Read more

Eastern Europeans and others seeking to use the current financial meltdown as an excuse to roll back climate commitment have failed (for now). The BBC reports:

European Union leaders agreed to stick to their plan to cut greenhouse gases – despite a surprise demand by Poland and six other member states to drop them to ease the impact on industry struggling with the global credit crunch.

Speaking at the end of a two-day summit, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “The deadline on climate change is so important that we cannot use the financial and economic crisis as a pretext for dropping it.”

Barack Obama seems to feel the same even as U.S. conservatives glom onto any justification for delay. I am beginning to think that a better term for them than “deniers” or “delayers” is simply “inactivists.”

The British government meanwhile has unveiled a tougher climate target:

Read more

Our guest blogger is Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

In the third and final presidential debate on October 15, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said one of his goals is that “we become energy independent and we will create millions of jobs in America.”

However, he conclusively demonstrated that he advocates policies that will achieve neither “energy independence” nor “millions of jobs.”

Plank #1: Nukes, Baby, Nukes

Sen. McCain said that to achieve “energy independence…. We have to have nuclear power.”

Building 100 new nuclear plants, as he has proposed, will do nothing to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Nuclear power generates approximately 20% of U.S. electricity, while oil produces less than 2%, and only 2% of oil use goes to producing electricity.

Nuclear power will not lead to energy independence because the U.S. must import over 90% of its uranium, with nearly one-third coming from Russia. If we double the number of nuclear plants, as McCain has called for, we would become even more dependent on countries that, in McCain’s words, “don’t like us very much.” Read more

Our guest blogger is Todd Darling, a documentary filmmaker whose film, “A Snow Mobile For George,” is being featured tonight in Washington, D.C., by Reel Progress.

Back on January 13, 2004, when I left Los Angeles loaded down with cameras, winter gear, and a threadbare credit card, few, if any heads would turn at the mention of “deregulation.” Head movement would be limited to a nod, as in “nod out.”

Wall Street’s wipe out changes that. Now we realize that we let the fox into the hen house, and now the fox wants to be reimbursed for the chickens he ate. But, when I set out to make “A Snow Mobile for George,” a film about environmental deregulation, the concept of deregulation was too abstract for most viewers. That’s why I picked the environment because the effects of deregulation had no place to hide. My drive across America, trailing my two-stroke snowmobile, looking for tales of environmental deregulation, didn’t turn up a lot of joy. The reason why should not have surprised me. Simply put, the same deregulation that mangled the environment, also ruined people’s lives. Watch the trailer:

This discovery hit us hard out on a snow-covered ridge in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin. A tall cowboy told us his land had been invaded by oil companies. They had come onto his land, uninvited, looking for natural gas — “Coal Bed Methane.” The companies drilled four wells every 80 acres, built roads, installed pipe lines, pumped away his water supplies, polluted his top-soil, installed noisy pressure stations, damaged the natural vegetation, and he had almost no say in the matter. He has been virtually forced off his own private land. Read more

Bloomberg is reporting:

Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election on Nov. 4, opening the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Democratic senator from Illinois will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers, his energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said in an interview. President George W. Bush declined to curb CO2 emissions under the law even after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the government may do so.

Why is this a big deal? It means that Obama can jumpstart serious U.S. action on greenhouse gas emissions without having to wait for complex legislation to wind its way through the House and Senate — and then without waiting even longer for that legislation to actually create a CO2 price high enough to change utility decision-making. It allows him to act quickly to address the single most important first step that developed countries must act upon — new coal plants:

Placing heat-trapping pollutants in the same category as ozone may lead to caps on power-plant emissions and force utilities to use the most expensive systems to curb pollution. The move may halt construction plans on as many as half of the 130 proposed new U.S. coal plants.

Actually it could stop even more than half the plants, once people realize that the president is serious about immediate climate action.

Here are some of the comments Grumet made:

Read more

Okay, I am no plumber making more than $250,000 a year [Note to self: You picked the wrong occupation. Note to my plumber: Are you sure that I need gold pipes?]

But I know a losing debate performance when I see one — as do the American people. A CBS instapoll of uncommitted voters gave the debate to Obama 53% to 22%. A CNN poll gave it to Obama 58% to 31% and similar results were found by every focus group, incuding the one Frank Luntz (!) ran for Fox news, where not a single person thought McCain had won. Luntz said: “None had made a decision to support Sen. Obama before the debate, but more than half supported him after the debate. It was a good night for Barack Obama.”

Ouch.

You may find it hard to believe, but McCain actually has a serious debate coach. If the debate had been abstractly scored on points, McCain might have at least tied, since he employed the standard debate tactic of keeping some of his most substantive attacks for the very end of the back-and-forths, where they went unanswered. But McCain doesn’t need a debate coach. He needs a messaging coach. Even uber-centrist David Gergen said McCain “looked angry. It was an exercise in anger management up there…. The looks and the disdain and the contempt and the anger that he felt was palpable.”

Presidential debates are fundamentally won on two core character tests. First, does the candidates appear to be a plausible commander in chief? Second, can I stomach 4 or 8 years of listening to this person? Both candidates crossed the first threshold, but only one crossed the second.

Finally, we have the answers to Bob Schieffer’s big question about “energy and climate control.” McCain believes nuclear power is an issue that will win him votes. It ain’t (see “Note to John McCain: Uncommitted Ohio voters just aren’t into nuclear power“). He used the word “nuclear” six times, and made it a core part of his response to Schieffer’s query: “Would each of you give us a number, a specific number of how much you believe we can reduce our foreign oil imports during your first term?”

Read more