UPDATE:  Predictably, Swift Boat smearer Morano has made Hansen’s post his top story at ClimateDepotted, again revealing that Hansen’s recent attacks are helping the deniers and delayers.

Much as I am happy to devote many Climate Progress posts to publicizing Hansen’s leading edge climate science analysis (see links below), I am unhappy to have to waste any time at all debunking his bleeding edge climate policy analysis (see “Memo to Hansen: Your opposition to Waxman-Markey is ill-conceived and unhelpful. There isn’t going to be a carbon tax nor should there be. Get over it and move on” and “Memo to Hansen 2: Why is the country’s top anti-science blog reprinting your stuff?“).

Still, his arguments need debunking because he is mostly recycling myths that others are pushing — and with the country’s top climate scientist putting his name on this collection of false and misleading statements, they will no doubt be parroted by yet more people.  Hansen has just written, “G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change” for The Huffington Post.

Let me go straight to his needlessly (and pointlessly) provocative attacks on the “counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey,” which is filled with right-wing and left-wing myths — and very little understanding of the basics of either this bill or cap-and-trade systems.

Hansen claims “For all its ‘green’ aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like ‘cap-and-trade’ scheme.”  Not so.  I have previously explained why W-M takes us sharply off of the BAU emissions path over the next decade, probably reducing coal use more than 25% by 2020 (see “Game changer, Part 2: Why unconventional natural gas makes the 2020 Waxman-Markey target so damn easy and cheap to meet“).  And then it requires a 42% emissions reduction by 2030 and an 83% reduction by 2050, which will drive a massive energy transition over the next few decades.

The global economy is indeed a Ponzi scheme, but this is the first piece of legislation by any major country that makes a serious effort to end that Ponzi scheme.

Hansen then lists “a few of the bill’s egregious flaws”:

• It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.

No.  The EPA doesn’t have the “ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.”  EPA might well use its recent endangerment finding to get that ability [partially and eventually], but it hasn’t asserted that regulatory capability yet.

More importantly, the CAA authority is most readily translated into regulating emissions from new power plants.  Regulating CO2 emissions from existing power plants would take a long time, engendering a great deal of litigation.  As John Podesta, former Clinton Administration Chief of Staff and now CEO of CAP, recently said, “it would be difficult for the EPA to enact a CO2 cap and trade without congressional cooperation.”

Moreover, for a man who wants to “phase out coal emissions over the next two decades,” as Hansen does, this is a pretty pointless complaint.  The Obama EPA was certainly never going to use the endangerment finding to do anything like that.

This “EPA can solve the problem on its own” myth is so commonplace that I will do separate post next week addressing it.  I certainly agree with NRDC that the bill should be changed to allow EPA to retain its CAA authority, but I wouldn’t list this among the bill’s top 4 flaws, let alone put it first.

Hansen’s next “egregious” flaw in W-M:

Read more

The long-awaited redesign has come.  I have tried to make use of some of your suggestions, such as putting recent comments on the sidebar (see “Site redesign coming “” any suggestions?“).

And yes, my old figures and pictures are now too narrow — but, on the bright side, new figures will be bigger and easier to read!  And the ad no longer interrupts the flow of the posts.

We’re probably not going to be making any more major changes anytime soon, but comments are welcome!

NOAA scientists today announced the arrival of El Ni±o, a climate phenomenon with a significant influence on global weather….

NOAA expects this El Ni±o to continue developing during the next several months, with further strengthening possible. The event is expected to last through winter 2009-10…..

In its monthly El Ni±o diagnostics discussion today [click here], scientists with the NOAA National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center noted weekly eastern equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures were at least 1.0 degree C above average at the end of June. The most recent El Ni±o occurred in 2006.

Today’s NOAA announcement is not news to CP readers (see June 4′s Breaking: NOAA puts out “El Ni±o Watch” and June 17′s, “NOAA: Fourth warmest May on record, model predicts a long and strong El Ni±o“).  But since it is news for everyone else, I will review what this means, updating my earlier analysis with new figures.  Regular readers can skip this post.

This announcement is a big deal from the perspective of heating up global temperatures and cooling off denier talking points.  After all, the La Ni±a conditions over the past 18 months helped temporarily mute the strong human-caused warming signal, allowing the global warming deniers to push their nonsensical global cooling meme with the help of the status quo media (see “Media enable denier spin 1: A (sort of) cold January doesn’t mean climate stopped warming“).

Figure 3:  Area-averaged upper-ocean heat content anomalies (°C) in the equatorial Pacific (5°N-5°S, 180º-100ºW).

Remember that back in January, NASA had predicted:

Given our expectation of the next El Ni±o beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance.

ENSO doesn’t change the overall warming trend, but it is a short-term modulation, what NASA labels the largest contributor to the “natural dynamical variability” of the climate system.  How are El Ni±o and La Ni±a defined?

Read more

Greenwire (subs. req’d) reports:

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer said today that she would delay until September the markup of a comprehensive global warming bill.

The California Democrat told reporters that many senators are focused this month on health care reform legislation, prompting the delay from her original plan to hold a vote before the August recess.

“We don’t have to rush it through,” Boxer said. “We’ll do it as soon as we get back, and we’ll have it at the desk when Harry wants it, when the leader wants it.”

Boxer was referring to the new Sept. 28 deadline set by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for all six Senate committees to complete work on the climate bill. Senate Democrats are still trying to pass the climate legislation before December, when U.N. climate negotiations continue in Copenhagen. But sponsors face an uphill climb to win over 60 votes, given steady opposition from Republicans and moderate and conservative Democrats.

No question about that.  I’ll post the Senate fence-sitters discussion shortly.

As I’ve always said, this bill is not going to make it to Obama’s desk this year — nor should it.  Right now, it’s not even clear the Senate will pass its version this year, although it probably will.  Boxer notes:

Read more

Grassroots climate activists are calling on the Senate to step up their efforts on comprehensive clean energy legislation, following the passage of the Waxman-Markey bill in the House. Using the theme from a famous danceclub song by the French electronica group Daft Punk, youth activists from the Avaaz Action Factory, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, and the Energy Action Coalition are asking for the American Clean Energy and Security Act to be “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger,” consistent with the 1Sky principles:

Harder oversight on coal plants,

Better renewable portfolio standard and investments in international adaptation,

Faster emissions reduction targets, and

Stronger leadership and a stronger bill.

Avaaz Action Factory activists showed up at Tuesday’s Environment and Public Works hearing in strongmen costumes and t-shirts emblazoned with the “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger” message, encouraging senators to “flex their own legislative muscles.” Today at 12:30 pm, in concert with the Campus Progress Lobby Day, hundreds of activists will be converging on the Upper Senate Lawn at Constitution and Delaware, NE to again shout out the Daft Punk-inspired call.

Tokyo subway flooring converts commuter footfalls into electricity

Heavy foot traffic at busy subway stations could soon be widely used to power station lighting and other electrical equipment thanks to technology currently being trialled in Tokyo.

In a small-scale experiment at Tokyo Station, one of the city’s busiest subway stops, so-called hatsudenyuka floors were installed at station gates, hallways and staircases.

The technology features elements capable of generating piezoelectricity, which are embedded in 0.4mm flooring tiles and covered by a mat. The piezo elements convert the pressure and vibration of commuter footsteps into electricity, which is used to power the station’s lights….

The trial, which started in 2006, was put on hold in March to analyse data, and early indications are that the energy harvesting system could be rolled out more widely. East Railway said it now hopes to eventually use the flooring as a clean source of supplementary power for other station technologies such as automatic ticket barriers and display panels.

Piezoelectricity applications have now been trialled at a number of locations around the world, including stations and nightclub dance floors, and while large-scale systems are yet be launched, wider roll out of the technology is being planned.

Research is also underway to use kinetic energy technologies for a number of different applications, such as recharging mobile electronic devices.

Okay, we aren’t talking about anything approaching a half a wedge [see "How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution].”  But this is the kind of innovative clean energy thinking that we need much, much more of.

Shell says U.S. oil refiners need more CO2 permits

Read more

Since the big international climate negotiation will be in Copenhagen this December, we can expect way too-much commentary by and coverage of the second most famous Danish delayer (after Hamlet).  Bjorn Lomborg may be the most widely debunked of that (small) group who claim to believe the IPCC science but who in fact spend all their time trashing both climate science and climate scientists (although Roger Pielke, Jr. is probably a close second).  I have certainly spent my fair share of time on him [see "Lomborg skewers the facts, again" and "Debunking Lomborg "” Part III and "Voodoo Economists 4: The idiocy of crowds or, rather, the idiocy of (crowded) debates"].

Today’s guest debunking is by Michael Pawlyn, Founder of Exploration Architecture — a practice that proposes new design solutions to global challenges based on biomimicry.  Pawlyn “was one of five winners in ‘A Car-free London’ – an ideas competition for strategic solutions to the capital’s future transport needs and new possibilities for urban spaces.”

Well I guess Bjorn Lomborg was hardly likely to welcome the news that his main argument has collapsed.   But that was the gist of what I said when I had to oppose him at the BCO conference (one of the major annual construction industry events in the UK) in May.

Nevertheless, it was surprising, and somewhat satisfying, to see how unhappy he was about this, given his calm and unflappable reputation. Unfortunately Lomborg refused to be filmed but you can see my talk here in three parts (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, with the full transcript copied below).  This post is a summary of the second half of my presentation — the first half describes some positive solutions based on applying biomimicry ideas to architecture. Lomborg’s presentation was very close to his set piece so those unfamiliar with his position may want to see his TED talk here.

As Climate Progress regulars will know, Lomborg has been remarkably successful in persuading people that tackling climate change is a low priority. His Copenhagen Consensus was a study paid for by The Economist and took as its starting point the challenge “If we had $50 billion dollars to spend, how could we achieve the greatest possible global good?” The study concluded that, from a list of thirty priorities, tackling climate change was the lowest. The argument could be summarized as follows:

• We’ve only got a limited amount to spend,
• Climate change is far from urgent and,
• Tackling it will be very expensive while doing little good.

While this argument has convinced thousands, every element of it has now been either discredited by the latest science or exposed as statistical trickery.

Read more

Okay, I replaced the words “Health Care” with “Climate Change” in the headline borrowed from the second lead story of the Washington Post today.  But the sausage-making-ain’t-pretty message of that story is d©j  vu all over again:

The Obama administration, hoping to boost its health-care reform effort with financial concessions from the hospital and pharmaceutical industries, is instead confronting deep dissension on several fronts within Democratic ranks and possible defections among key constituencies….

No single development appeared likely to kill Obama’s signature domestic agenda item, but the relentless barrage of challenges that seemed to hit hourly served to demonstrate why no president since Lyndon B. Johnson has been able to enact large-scale health legislation.

From the outset, Obama has declined to dictate the details of a health-care bill to Congress, but he and his most trusted advisers have worked aggressively to shape its parameters and build political support. At the core of their strategy has been a series of side agreements aimed at extracting revenue, neutralizing potential adversaries and signaling to lawmakers that when the difficult votes come, they will have the political cover of industry support.

Sound familiar?

Passing transformational legislation of any kind is very hard nowadays.  No president has ever been able to pass large-scale climate legislation.  Indeed, no president has been able to pass large-scale environmental legislation of any kind for two decades, since the GOP became the party of anti-conservation.  As I wrote last month (see “The political surprise of the year: Health care reform is tougher than climate action“):

Read more