Here is the letter from 18 top U.S. scientific organizations:

Dear Senator:

As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.

These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades. [See Footnote #1 below]

If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.

We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.

Well it’s a start (see “Publicize or perish: The scientific community is failing miserably in communicating the potential catastrophe of climate change“).  But I still prefer the Bali declaration by more than 200 of the world’s leading climate scientists, which embraces the 2°C target and specific emissions reductions targets.

The footnote reads:

Read more

I just realized that a combination of a computer glitch and human error (mine) accidentally tightened the spam filter for about two days.  A couple dozen comments were caught.  I just went through and released them.

I hope I found them all amidst the staggering amount of real spam (e.g. “buy xanax cheap” — not that such offers wouldn’t come in handy somedays).

My apologies to new and old readers alike if you tried to post and failed.  Please keep those comments coming!

In an ambitious draft proposal, the official planning agency for the four Pacific Northwest states said last week that energy efficiency measures could meet at least 85 percent of new electricity demand over the next 20 years, with renewable generation and a limited amount of gas-fired power plants meeting the rest.

As Energy Daily (subs. req’s) reported recently, efficiency investments are the focal point for a detailed new plan drafted by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

The Council, with members from Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon, is responsible for developing long-term (20 year) electric power plans and revising those plans every five years. Here’s a snippet from their press release for this plan, the sixth in a series:

“Energy efficiency is the keystone of the power plan,” said Chair Bill Booth, an Idaho member of the Council. “The Council has identified an impressive amount of low-cost energy efficiency, and we’re looking forward to hearing comments about our analysis of that potential.”

Sounds pretty good. An economically attractive, environmentally sensitive approach to meeting energy demand through increased efficiency investments. But c’mon, that wouldn’t be the first time efficiency has been touted in this blog. So what’s newsworthy about the introduction of this plan, especially as it originates from the granola crunching part of the Western U.S.?

Read more

Our guest bloggers are Kathy Ozer, the executive director of the National Family Farm Coalition, and Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, PhD, the senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network North America and a lead author on the UN-sponsored International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development (IAASTD).

Roger Beachy

Lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House,” President Obama assured us upon inauguration. And yet he just nominated to two key posts “Big Ag” industry power brokers, who come straight from the chemical pesticide and biotechnology sectors. While they may not be registered as lobbyists, both men come from organizations representing powerful agribusiness interests, which every year spend millions of dollars in lobbying to advance their companies’ chemical and transgenic products.

Obama has tapped Roger Beachy, long-time president of the Danforth Plant Science Center (Monsanto’s nonprofit arm) as chief of the USDA’s newly created National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Created by the 2008 Farm Bill, NIFA is the new means of awarding the USDA’s external research dollars. As the director of NIFA (a nomination that doesn’t require congressional approval), Beachy will oversee the distribution of nearly $500 million in grants and other research funding. Sustainable agriculture initiatives are likely to suffer, as research dollars are awarded to projects that promote Beachy’s vested interests in biotechnology.

Islam Siddiqui

Islam Siddiqui, currently the VP of Science and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife USA, was nominated to the post of Chief Agricultural Negotiator for the U.S. Trade Representative’s office. Why the president would nominate someone from the group that infamously chided the First Lady for refusing to use pesticides on the White House garden is a bit of a mystery. This critical position is designed to use free trade agreements to open up foreign markets for U.S. agriculture goods — in the past, mostly to promote chemical-intensive, genetically modified products that undermine local food cultures in developing countries.

It’s crucial that the Senate Finance Committee hears from public witnesses while investigating his past roles. At CropLife International, Siddiqui led an initiative to weaken restrictions against fertilizers and pesticides, as part of the World Trade Organization’s Doha Round of negotiations. He also served as the senior agricultural trade adviser during the Clinton administration, and pressed for getting genetically modified crops and seeds approved for commercial use in the United States.

Now the United States will continue its efforts to export the worst aspects of U.S. agriculture to other countries, many of which are deeply wary of genetically modified seeds and the impacts of toxic pesticides on their communities. Mirroring those concerns, a comprehensive United Nations and World Bank- sponsored International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development (IAASTD) has said that one of the best ways to feed the world is to increase investments in agro-ecological science and farming.

We don’t need more genetically modified seeds. What we need is enforcement of antitrust laws to break up monopoly control of the global food system, and fairer — not “freer” — trade arrangements to overcome poverty and hunger around the world.

The Obama administration has made tremendous strides towards encouraging the growth of the local food movement, and its connections to human health and ecological impacts. The White House organic garden and the farmers market spearheaded by Michelle Obama are important symbolic gestures, as is the USDA’s new “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” initiative.

However, these latest appointments of industry insiders to two of the most influential offices that will shape U.S. food and agricultural policy at home and abroad call into question just how committed the Obama administration is to promoting sustainable agriculture and reducing hunger in the developing world.

Okay, it may not exactly be a stampede of elephants crossing over, but there is real movement by key swing Senators, as E&E Daily makes clear in an excellent new analysis, “On road to 60, Senate swells with fence sitters,” (subs. req’d).  They count 31 “yes” votes, 11 “probably yes,” and

24 senators now belong in the “fence sitter” category that leaves them up for grabs headed into the winter push for 60 votes that sponsors will need to overcome an expected Republican filibuster.

That should read “expected (and immoral) conservative filibuster” — since it now seems clear, the bill will get a number of GOP votes (see “Murkowski praises Kerry-Graham climate plan. The Washington Times writes, “Her remarks signal the potential for a major turn in the climate change debate in Congress”).

I’ll list the Senators in each category below, but first it is worth noting continued movement by one key swing Senator, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).  As Reuters and the NY Times reported over the weekend:

A senior Republican in the United States Senate, conservative Senator Lisa Murkowski, said she would consider voting for a “cap and trade” climate change bill Democrats are pushing if it also contains a vigorous expansion of nuclear energy and domestic oil drilling.

“Count me as one of those who will keep my mind open as we move forward,” she said in a C-SPAN interview that aired Sunday.   In the interview she said she recently talked with Sen. Graham about is bipartisan proposals and “It was a good conversation.”  She acknowledged the state has been ravaged by climate change:

Read more

Developing nations join West in deforestation fight

Six developing countries will join five western nations, including the United States and Britain, to combat climate change by better managing forestry resources, the World Bank said Tuesday.

The Forest Investment Program (FIP) will meet for the first time on October 29 in Washington to kickstart the program and discuss the criteria for selecting countries or regions of the world that could benefit most from the effort. Brazil, the Democratic Republic of Congo, India, Morocco, Nepal, and Romania will join donor nations Australia, Denmark, Norway, Britain and the United States, who have jointly pledged some 350 million dollars to fund the project.

The FIP is among the first of a new generation of partnerships between developing and developed countries working to combat the threat of climate change through forest management, the World Bank said.

“This new program will provide much-needed upfront investment to developing countries and forest-dependent communities to help them prepare for and benefit from financial flows for the sustainable management of forests,” said Eduardo Saboia, who represented Brazil in earlier meetings aimed at designing the FIP.

Global deforestation, which is advancing at a rate of five percent per decade, is responsible for 20 percent of all the annual carbon dioxide emissions. The 20 percent figure is roughly equivalent to the total annual emissions of either the United States or China, and surpasses the total yearly emissions from every car, truck, plane, ship and train on Earth, according to estimates provided by the United Nations.

Read more

[Note:  The error-riddled book is now searchable again on Amazon, so readers can confirm that all of my excerpts were correct and in context.  The book has garnered a number of positive comments from (fast) readers, even on the climate chapter whose main conclusion has been rejected by its two primary scientific sources -- see Dubner is baffled that Caldeira "doesn't believe geoengineering can work without cutting emissions" and Myhrvold jumps ship on Levitt and Dubner.]

Deep in his Sunday, October 18 post attacking my accurate debunking of his book, Dubner has buried this apology:

Read more

Warning:  The photo below the jump is quite disturbing.

Guest blogger A. Siegel focuses on a too-little-seen side of our unsustainably overconsuming, petroleum-based culture — humanity’s immense plastic footprint and what we can do about it. This was first published on his blog.

Read more

Given intellectual leaders like Rush “Why don’t you just go kill yourself?” Limbaugh, it’s no surprise the state of the conservative-side of the debate is so very coarse, as these reposts from Think Progress underscore:

In a new interview with Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS), Politico asks the congressman what the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus does. Harper’s response:

We hunt liberal, tree-hugging Democrats, although it does seem like a waste of good ammunition.

Harper represents Mississippi’s 3rd congressional district, which contains Neshoba County “” the place of one of the most infamous race-related crimes in American history. In 1964, white supremacists lynched three civil rights workers. In recent months, sportsmen around the country have been joining up with “tree-hugging” liberals on climate legislation. In April, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus and other sportsmen’s and environmental groups “called for Congress to pass global warming legislation that includes increased funding for natural resource protection.”