In his economic address today, President Obama emphasized how our economic foundation must be rebuilt using the power of “the renewable energy that can create millions of new jobs and new industries,” in part becase “the country that harnesses this energy will lead the 21st century.” He went on to explain that closing the “carbon pollution loophole” through a “market-based cap on carbon pollution” is critical to a green economy:

But the only way to truly spark this transformation is through a gradual, market-based cap on carbon pollution, so that clean energy is the profitable kind of energy. Some have argued that we shouldn’t attempt such a transition until the economy recovers, and they are right that we have to take the costs of transition into account. But we can no longer delay putting a framework for a clean energy economy in place. If businesses and entrepreneurs know today that we are closing this carbon pollution loophole, they will start investing in clean energy now. And pretty soon, we’ll see more companies constructing solar panels, and workers building wind turbines, and car companies manufacturing fuel-efficient cars. Investors will put some money into a new energy technology, and a small business will open to start selling it. That’s how we can grow this economy, enhance our security, and protect our planet at the same time.

The We Campaign is asking Americans to join President Obama’s call to close the carbon loophole and repower America:

The Repower America petition tells Congress to “support bold national policies this year to transition to a clean energy economy and help solve the climate crisis. We urge you to cap carbon pollution to help create the jobs and businesses that will Repower America.”

In my ongoing effort to bring the kind of balance to this blog that you have come to expect from big media, here are excerpts from today’s Financial Times:

Washington’s energy and environment policy risks plunging the US into an economic tailspin that could turn it into “the world’s cleanest third world country“, one of the US oil industry’s most successful chief executives has warned.

James Hackett, chairman and chief executive of Anadarko, one of the US’s largest independent oil and gas companies, said in an interview: “The histrionic and maniacal focus on carbon dioxide is intellectually repugnant to me.”

Mr Hackett’s assessment echoes the private views of many oilmen less willing to be quite so direct and reveals the fissure developing between the industry and Washington. His views contrast with those of cautious, politically and environmentally correct European oil executivesRoyal Dutch Shell. [sic]

Yeah, well “environmentally correct European oil executives” ain’t what they used to be — see “Shell shocker: Once ‘green’ oil company guts renewables effort” and “Investors warn Shell and BP over tar sands greenwashing” and “I see a green wash and I want it painted black” and “Shell spanked for greenwashing ad.”

Actually, I decided to excerpt this interview mainly because of two words added by the reporter, Carola Hoyos:

Read more

Despite refusing to run a correction, the opinion page editor of the Minneapolis Star Tribune is now “embarrassed” he published a GOP lie about energy reform without checking it first. On April 8, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a notorious global warming denier, attacked green economy legislation in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, claiming that “cap and trade” is really “cap and tax”:

According to an analysis by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the average American household could expect its yearly energy bill to increase by $3,128 per year.

This was a flat lie, as a letter to the editor published the very next day by the Star Tribune pointed out. In fact, Bachmann’s lie had been debunked publicly by MIT’s John Reilly with Politifact.com on Tuesday, March 24th. On April 1st, ThinkProgress published a letter from Reilly to the Republican leadership denouncing the fabricated figure.

Eric Ringham, the opinion page editor of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, recognizes now that the MIT lie was fully debunked before the column was submitted by Bachmann:

It wasn’t on my radar. I’m embarrassed to have let it go unchallenged.

In an interview with the Wonk Room, Ringham explained his decision to run Bachmann’s column without checking its veracity, despite her record of extreme anti-environmentalism and promotion of conspiracy theories about international finance and Islamic terrorism. With both the limited resources he has and the role of the opinion page as a forum for argument, he argued it is “an uncomfortable role” for an op-ed editor to run corrections after a column’s publication. “I’m not equipped – or really inclined – to go, after the fact, probing someone’s assertions.”

Ringham does try to do some fact-checking ahead of time: “What we do is check the facts that smell. This one didn’t to me.” He considers the strongly worded letter to the editor as a sufficient response, because: “The best remedy to offensive speech is more speech.” The policy that he follows as an opinion page editor is that “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

“You can rest assured this study is never going to be represented in the paper again,” Ringham concluded, “without confirmation it’s being accurately portrayed.”

On April 10th, the Star Tribune reported on Bachmann’s anti-cap-and-trade forum without noting she had lied in its own pages that same week.

Last month, EPA made its landmark finding: Global warming threatens public health and welfare.  Now, as Greenwire (subs. req’d) reports today:

U.S. EPA’s proposed endangerment finding cleared the White House review process yesterday, paving the way for an official announcement detailing the threats posed by global warming to both public health and welfare.

My sources say the official announcement is likely to come next Wednesday, April 22 aka Earth Day.  But this endangerment finding is going to benefit humans much more than the Earth, which will certainly be fine no matter what we humans do.

This decision means EPA and team Obama will be able to issue regulations that deal primarily with new facilities that generate substantial amounts of greenhouse gas emissions “” new dirty coal plants, this means you! (see “Obama EPA to act on global warming emissions from new coal plants“).  It also will apply pressure on Congress to act.

Here is more on today’s story:

Read more

We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand….

Some have argued that we shouldn’t attempt such a transition until the economy recovers, and they are right that we have to take the costs of transition into account.  But we can no longer delay putting a framework for a clean energy economy in place.  If businesses and entrepreneurs know today that we are closing this carbon pollution loophole, they will start investing in clean energy now.  And pretty soon, we’ll see more companies constructing solar panels, and workers building wind turbines, and car companies manufacturing fuel-efficient cars.  Investors will put some money into a new energy technology, and a small business will open to start selling it.  That’s how we can grow this economy, enhance our security, and protect our planet at the same time.

The status quo establishment media keeps trying to claim that Obama is backing away from his climate and energy plans, that he is supposedly growing more “cautious” (see story #4 here).  And this is in spite of the fact that the president himself continues to go out of his way to restate his commitment to these urgent issues and push hard for action (see Obama says his energy plan and cap-and-trade “will be authorized” even if it’s not in the budget “and I will sign it” “” Washington Post confused.)

Another tremendous example is the big speech on the economy he just delivered this morning.  Given the need to talk about key issues like mortgages and Detroit and banks and job losses and the stimulus and bailout, Obama could have easily kept to a narrow message, which is what the do-nothing “centrist” pundits want.

But once again the President showed that he understands what the pundits don’t — the country has no sustainable future without strong action on energy and climate.  Here is what he said:

Read more

Top Story

Dry Taps in Mexico City: A Water Crisis Gets Worse

Severe water shortages in Australia have recently made headlines (see here and below), and now Time reports on the growing water crisis in the Western Hemisphere’s largest city. The story underscores water’s vitality to humanity””and all life””reminding us of our common vulnerability to water shortages. Imagine if 5 million New Yorkers woke up with no running water today. It’s not a pretty picture.

Time reporter Ioan Grillo largely misses the bigger story.  Only once is climate change mentioned, when Mexico’s under director of the National Water Commission says:

This could be caused by climate change and deforestation. These are difficult factors to understand and predict.

It’s a safe bet to include climate change as a likely contributer — and, more important, to report that things are going to get much, much worse for Mexico on our current emissions path (see here). Had the reporter picked up the LA Times last week he would have read that these kinds of never-before-seen water shortages are happening elsewhere, marking the beginnings of a distinctly global phenomenon (see “Australia today offers horrific glimpse of U.S. Southwest, much of planet, post-2040, if we don’t slash emissions soon“).  The Mexico story notes:

Read more

Not many people I know think space solar is a low-cost, scalable solution.

Certainly it is worth pursuing any genuine low-carbon baseload power source if it can be practical and scalable — and affordable, which I would put at $0.15 a kilowatt hour or less for.  The problem with space solar is that, like hydrogen fuel cell cars, there is little chance it could be affordable until it is massively scaled up — and no guarantee that it would be practical and affordable even then.  That’s one reason major utilities have been unwilling to take the risk on it.

Until now.

Read more

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.

That is attributed to Dante, but applies best to the Washington establishment, especially one David Broder.

Part 1 looked at why the establishment media’s coverage of global warming is so fatally useless.  Newsweek‘s Evan Thomas unintentionally provided the answer “” the shocking, unstated truth about the media elite: They have “a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are.”

But Evan Thomas is a B-list establishment journalist compared to the dean of the DC press corp — David Broder.  In two recent columns, Broder has combined a scientifically uninformed position on climate with remarkably flawed political analysis designed to support his position.  Let’s start with the absurdities in his most recent piece:  “Why the Center Still Holds“:

Read more