The top climate reporter for the NYT has published what is arguably the worst article of his career, replete with statements that simply are scientifically inaccurate or misleading beyond belief:

The world leaders who met at the United Nations to discuss climate change on Tuesday are faced with an intricate challenge: building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years….

The recent spate of relatively cool years is particularly noticeable because it followed a seesawing from unusually cool temperatures to unusually hot ones in the 1990s, said Vicky Pope of Britain’s climate agency, called the Met Office….

The global average temperature is now only an imperceptible .01 degree Fahrenheit higher than it was in 1999, according to the British meteorology office.

That litany of misinformation and confusion is what you expect from the Swift boat smearer‘s website, not the paper of record.  And sure enough, former Inhofe staffer and general disinformation spreader Marc Morano couldn’t be in more agreement Revkin, running the blaring headline at ClimateDepotted:  “NYT’s Moment of Clarity: UN faces challenge achieving climate treaty ‘when global temps have been stable for a decade and may even drop in next few years’.”

As we’ll see, Revkin owes his readers and the whole world multiple corrections and “explanations,” if not a complete retraction.

Let me try to set the scientific record straight, since the NYT has so confused the matter.  First off, the most shocking thing that Revkin does is quote the Met Office in the same exact sentence he makes his most egregious mistatement:   “The recent spate of relatively cool years.”

Relatively cool?  Relative to what, Andy?  Venus?  Here is the Met Office temperature ranking of the past century and a half on planet Earth (see here):

That’s right, according to the Met Office, there has been a recent spate of relatively very, very hot years.  As the Met Office explains, “over the past decade, most years have remained close to the global average temperature reached in 1998. All the years from 2000 to 2008 have been in the top 14 warmest years on record.”

The interesting question is not why the global temperature has — using the Met Office data — been roughly flat for a few years.  The interesting question is what caused the step change in temperature rise, whereby the decade of the 2000s is going to be the hottest decade in the temperature record, much warmer than the decade of the 1990s, which at the time was the hottest decade on record.  Hint:  Scientists call it global warming.  I’ll come back to this step change, this recent jump in temperatures, in a later post.

Andy’s questionable and uber-misleading assertion — “global temperatures have been stable for a decade” — should at the very least be amended “at record high levels.”

But it’s far from clear the original statement is actually true!  Indeed, you’d never know it from Revkin’s post, which relies exclusively on the temperature record of the leading UK climate change office, but the United States actually produces a global temperature record that paints a very different picture than the Met Office.  But then, that temperature record does not fit into the narrative Revkin is pushing, so it’s no big surprise that he omits any mention of it whatsoever:

Read more

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) is trying to prevent the United States from being ready for the next Hurricane Katrina. Vitter, who denies the human influence on global warming, has submitted an amendment (S. Amdt. 2450) to the Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 2996) to block funding for centers that study and prepare for the impacts of climate change:

SEC. 423. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO DEVELOP REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE OFFICES.

No funds made available by this Act may be used to develop Regional Climate Change offices within the Department of the Interior.

On September 14, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced a comprehensive framework for his department’s response to climate change impacts, including the establishment of eight Regional Climate Change Response Centers under the U.S. Geological Survey. The USGS has already begun the development of these regional science centers, which will “synthesize and integrate climate change climate change impact data and tools that the Department’s managers and partners can use when managing the Department’s land, water, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources.”

Vitter’s amendment would be a bizarre attempt to outlaw science for any U.S. senator. However, it is particularly immoral for a senator from Louisiana. The great Mississippi Delta is under extraordinary threat from global warming, as seas rise and storms intensify. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated Vitter’s state, costing this nation $80 billion, killing thousands, and displacing a million people. Most of the devastation could have been avoided with the proper preparation and response. One major gap was a lack of understanding of climate change, which significantly intensified Hurricane Katrina. As hurricane scientist Kerry Emanuel has explained, “Probably if Hurricane Katrina had happened in 1980, the levees would have held.”

In a letter to the Chamber, PG&E Chairman and Chief Executive Peter Darbee wrote:

We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another.

In short, we’re leaving because the Chamber has been overrun by climate science deniers and disinformers (see “Are Chamber President Tom Donohue’s Ties to Union Pacific Railroading the Companies that Support Climate Policy?” and “Chamber admits calling for ‘Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century’ was dumb “” but it still apes the deniers“).

PG&E’s letter is excerpted in a blunt post on the company’s blog, Next100.com, titled, “Irreconcilable Differences,” written by Jonathan Marshall, PG&E’s Chief of External Communications:

Read more

This analysis is from the Center for American Progress.   CAP statements on President Obama’s Speech and Chinese President Hu’s Speech at Today’s UN Climate Summit are here.  Photo above is U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon speaks during the opening of the World Climate Conference in Geneva on September 3.

Myth #1: The United States should not have to act if China and India are not doing anything.

Reality: Both China and India are now moving forward with ambitious plans for emissions reductions and low-carbon development.

China’s fuel economy standard for passenger cars is equivalent to 36.7 miles per gallon, and China is reportedly considering raising this to 42.2 mpg. The U.S. standard remained at 27.5 mpg for 20 years until President Obama recently announced a new standard in May of 35.5 mpg by 2016.

[We need to hear details about China's new carbon intensity goal.]

India recently announced that it will quantify greenhouse gas emissions and take actions to reduce emissions through deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency. India has announced the most ambitious solar energy goal in the world and is moving forward with a plan to radically improve home appliance efficiency.

The Bush administration signed on to the U.N. Bali Action Plan in December 2007, which is a commitment by developed countries to assist developing countries with technology and finance to transition to a low-carbon pathway in exchange for a commitment from those developing countries to make “measurable, reportable, and verifiable” emissions reductions. The United States and China signed an additional bilateral agreement this July that could help make this plan a reality. Such agreements will ensure that the major emerging economies will continue their efforts to reduce emissions.

Myth #2: China and India will not commit to an international agreement on climate change.

Reality: Both China and India have publically stated that they will sign a new climate agreement as long as it does not inhibit their economic growth.

Read more

Does the Republican Senator from climate-ravaged Alaska really support stronger and faster action to reduce CO2 emissions than the House-passed bill requires?

Lisa Murkowski has taken some real heat for proposing to delay EPA’s Supreme-Court-mandated requirement to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (see “Murkowski proposes to fiddle while Alaska burns“).  So her staff has sent around the “Murkowski EPA Amendment Fact Sheet” to “help reporters cover the issue.”  It offers the most amazing defense of the Senator’s proposal:

Nearly all environmental groups, members of Congress and even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson have said that congressional action on climate change is preferable to EPA regulation.

Can’t disagree with that (see “The dangerous myth that the EPA’s endangerment finding can somehow stop dangerous warming if the climate bill dies“).  Of course, all environmental groups oppose her amendment, too, but let that go for now….

Sen. Murkowski believes climate change is one of the great challenges of our time and that it must be addressed. However, it won’t be easy. Properly addressing a problem of this magnitude requires serious intellectual analysis and consideration of a wide array of possible solutions. This true bipartisan debate isn’t going to happen with the threat of economically disastrous EPA regulations hanging over Congress’ head.

All true — well, other than the last sentence, which is certainly the exact opposite of the prevailing view of almost all the people this fact sheet just quoted in the previous paragraph.

The key point is that Murkowski believes climate change is a great challenge that must be addressed with Congressional action.  But what kind of action?  Here is where the fact sheet gets jaw-dropping:

Read more

Seven green jobs for every job lost in dirty energy sectors

Investment in renewables and energy efficiency would create seven times more green jobs over the next ten years than would be lost in the coal and nuclear sectors in Europe, according to a report launched today by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), and backed by trade unions.

A switch from dirty energy to renewables and energy efficiency would not just avoid over 470 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions in OECD Europe, but would create 30% more jobs by 2020 than if we continue investing in fossil and nuclear fuels. If Europe chooses a clean energy pathway, 1.2 million people would be employed in the power generation sector, compared to eight hundred and fifty thousand under business as usual.  The report finds that over three hundred and eighty thousand jobs would be created in renewables and energy efficiency over the next decade, as opposed to some fifty thousand that would be lost in the coal and nuclear sectors.

“For each job lost in the coal and nuclear sectors in Europe, seven jobs would be created in renewable energy and energy efficiency over the next ten years. Green investments are an opportunity to revitalise the economy: postponing climate action is prolonging the economic recession and cheating us out of thousands of jobs. European leaders need to trigger an energy revolution and support and re-train communities affected by this technology shift,” said Frauke Thies, Greenpeace EU energy expert.

“Now is the time to put in place a ‘just transition’ to sustainably transform the jobs of today and develop the decent and green jobs of tomorrow,” added Guy Ryder, General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). “The union movement, as well as the authors of this report, believe ambitious climate action by world leaders can and must be a driver for sustainable economic growth and social progress.”

The report: Working for the Climate: Renewable Energy & The Green Job [R]evolution is based on Greenpeace’s Energy [R]evolution report and research from the Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) at the Sydney University of Technology.  The report shows that by 2020, 5 million people could work for the renewable power industry globally and more than eight hundred and twenty thousand in Europe.

“There are already 450,000 people working in the renewable energy industry in Europe, representing a turnover of more than EUR 45 billion. This research proves that renewable energy is key to tackling both the climate and economic crises,” said Christine Lins, Secretary General of the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC).

Bill Clinton: “I still think the president should try really hard to pass climate change legislation this year, in addition to health care”

Read more

This morning, President Barack Obama delivered his first major address on climate change, speaking before the United Nations Climate Summit:

No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees. The security and stability of each nation and all peoples – our prosperity, our health, our safety – are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out. And yet, we can reverse it. John F. Kennedy once observed that “Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man.” It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat. It is true of my own country as well. We recognize that. But this is a new day. It is a new era. And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.

Obama announced that the EPA has started “tracking how much greenhouse gas pollution is being emitted throughout the country,” a critical first step in “slashing our emissions to reach the targets we set for 2020 and our long-term goal for 2050.” He called for an international agreement “that will allow all nations to grow and raise living standards without endangering the planet.”

Below is the full text of President Obama’s remarks, as prepared for delivery: Read more

President Obama’s speech on the urgent need for climate action is reprinted in full below with comments and supporting links.  Obama’s blunt remarks should give heart to all climate science realists — at home and abroad — that he will in fact bring all of his political and rhetorical skills to bear on passing climate and clean legislation in the next several months.

UPDATE:  Here is a speech clip.  I’ll post a full clip when it’s up.

Obama fully understands the catastrophic risk to future generations — and to our generations moral legacy:

Good morning.  I want to thank the Secretary-General for organizing this summit, and all the leaders who are participating.  That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing.  Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it – boldly, swiftly, and together – we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.

No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change.  Rising sea levels threaten every coastline.  More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.  More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.  On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees.  The security and stability of each nation and all peoples – our prosperity, our health, our safety – are in jeopardy.  And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.

In short, we face Hell and High Water.

And yet, we can reverse it.  John F. Kennedy once observed that “Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man.”  It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat.  It is true of my own country as well.  We recognize that.  But this is a new day.  It is a new era.  And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.

No question about that (see here).  Obama clearly understands the clean energy opportunity:

Read more

The NYT reports (via Climate Wire):

Senate Democratic aides say Boxer has settled on 20 percent, and she will make the case by arguing that the slightly higher target is not that big of a leap given recent estimates from the Energy Information Administration that show U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell 6 percent last year because of the recession and a shift away from coal and toward natural gas.

This was the precise argument I made last week for why the Environment and Public Works bill should have a 20% target for 2020.  That said, I suspect the Senate will be lucky to pass a 17% bill.  And perhaps even EPW won’t report out such a bill if “the chairwoman wants to satisfy key moderates on her panel, which include Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).”

If Reid and Obama really want it — and if health care reform doesn’t collapse entirely — the bill could still come to the Senate floor for a final vote by early December, in time for Copenhagen.  After Obama’s blunt UN speech, I’d say there is at least a 50-50 chance of that, but, again, I don’t think the precise timing is as important as picking the time for a floor debate/vote that would optimize the chance for actually passing.

Here are more details on the timing:

Read more