This is a Think Progress repost.

Clean energy legislation passed by the House, now pending in the Senate, faces fierce opposition from the proprietors of fossil fuel companies, and much has been reported on how domestic oil and coal companies have flooded the debate with money, lobbying, and misinformation. These opponents of clean energy reform claim to be “standing up” for American jobs and security. However, according to an investigation by ThinkProgress, many of the lobbyists and right-wing operatives engineering the attacks on clean energy reform either work directly for petro-governments, or work for companies in the business of importing foreign oil:

Read more

Our guest bloggers are Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and Jaren Love.

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski (R) plans to offer an amendment that would block enforcement of the Clean Air Act. Her “Dirty Air Act” amendment would delay progress in reducing pollution. Meanwhile, global warming continues to plague Alaska, threatening its people, economy and even the oil industry. So why would Lisa Murkowski promote a Dirty Air Act that ignores her state? Big oil and other special interests have loaded her campaign coffers with cash and even helped with an earlier version of her proposal.

Her amendment would block action required by the Clean Air Act and mandated by the US Supreme Court three years ago. Her spokesperson “acknowledged that the chances of actually stopping EPA global warming rules are minimal,” which suggests that her efforts are brazenly political, and designed to curry favor with big oil rather than address our energy needs.

Murkowski’s efforts to block pollution reductions conflicts with Alaska’s interests. Her state is on the front lines of global warming impacts in the United States. Over the past 100 years, some parts of Alaska have experienced temperature increases of up to 4°F, which is more than twice the rate of the rest of the United States. The U.S. Global Change Research Program determined that “climate change impacts are much more pronounced [in Alaska] than in other regions of the United States.”

Alaska’s warming threatens its people. A 2009 Government Accountability Office report determined that global warming has “imminently threatened” 31 Alaska villages because of coastal erosion, flooding and climate change. Twelve of these villages are already beginning a relocation process. In 2006, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated that relocating Shishmaref (a barrier island town of 600 residents on the state’s west coast) would cost $200 million. The cost for relocating other villages would be similar, so it could cost up to $2.4 billion to move all of these villages.

Climate change in Alaska could also harm the oil industry. Oil exploration and production are threatened by warmer temperatures that have shortened the winter season necessary for construction of ice roads essential for exploratory and drilling activities. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources found the ice road season has dropped from 200 days per year to 100 days per year over the last 30 years. The Global Change Research report found that “this results in a 50 percent reduction in days that oil and gas exploration and extraction equipment can be used.” Oil production has also decreased in the summer due to warmer temperatures, reducing compressor efficiency.

Global warming could further harm Alaska’s economy by damaging its infrastructure. Evidence shows that roads, buildings, pipelines and power lines built on top of permafrost may shift, warp or collapse from the thawing. These damages could add $3.6 to $6.1 billion (10-20%) to future costs of public infrastructure between now and 2030.

Despite the global warming threat to Alaska, Senator Murkowski launched efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act last September. She consulted big oil and other special interest lobbyists to advise her on this legislative assault. Jeffrey R. Holmstead and Roger R. Martella Jr have clients who would gain from a weaker Clean Air Act and status quo energy policies. The Anchorage Daily News reported that “Holmstead’s clients include the CSX railroad, Arch Coal, Duke Energy and Progress Energy…Martella’s clients include the National Alliance of Forest Owners and the Alliance of Food Associations.”

Senator Murkowski attempted to diminish the assistance provided by these lobbyists. The Washington Post, however, reports that both Holmstead and Martella briefed a number of staffers from other Senate offices on the draft Murkowski amendment.

“Holmstead and Martella dominated the opening of the meeting by describing how the revised amendment had answered the attacks lodged by some Democrats and environmental groups.”

Senator Murkowski’s staff did not contradict this report that big oil and coal lobbyists briefed other staffers on her amendment at a meeting convened by her office.

Why would Lisa Murkowski neglect threats to her state, and instead offer the Dirty Air Act favored by big polluters? It may be that big oil has been kind to her. Beginning with her first Senate race in 2004, she received $365,813 from oil and gas interests. This election cycle, Murkowski is the third largest recipient of big oil campaign cash in the Senate. Now that big oil has denounced pollution reductions, Murkowski is listening.

Senator Murkowski claims that her Dirty Air Act is designed “to allow the legislative process to proceed. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to have a vote that will allow for that discussion.” Yet she has done nothing in the 111th Congress to support pollution reductions. She voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that invests $90 billion in clean energy jobs and research. Previously, she voted against bipartisan global warming legislation authored by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT), and skipped the vote on a bill1 by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), John Warner (R-VA), and Lieberman (I-CT).

Clean energy reform and global warming pollution reductions would spur new investments, create jobs, increase American energy independence and cut global warming pollution. It could help the Alaska oil and gas industry, and protect Alaska villages from erosion and floods linked to warmer temperature. Rather than attempt to weaken the Clean Air Act, Senator Murkowski should join Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in their efforts to develop and pass comprehensive legislation that would achieve these goals.

We have Al Gore who is viewed by many as being the most influential communicator on the climate change issue who is up to his neck in carbon trading and also has many board associations that help his cause. Now we have the leader of the UN’s IPCC with questionable business associations. Where’s NYT‘s Andy Revkin? Where’s 60 Minutes? Where’s Dateline NBC?

That would be former TV weatherman Anthony Watts in yet another post at his blog WattsUpWithThat acting as populist champion attacking supposed climate profiteers.  Except of course the long-debunked Gore charge is a fabrication — see Grist on the NYT’s “baseless hit job on Gore,” plus the story’s origin in a Fox News doctored video.  You can read Pachauri’s comments here, “Pachauri slams charges about conflict of interest.”

It’s kind of funny to see the anti-science crowd go after Pachauri for his connection to oil companies now that he has become a climate science realist.  Pachauri was specifically chosen as IPCC chair in 2002 after the Bush administration waged a successful campaign to have him replace the outspoken Dr. Robert Watson, who was opposed by fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil. It’s the facts that make people alarmists, not their politics or professional background (see “Desperate times, desperate scientists“).

But what’s even funnier is that holier-than-thou Watts might be open to a charge of conflict of interest by the same standards he holds others up to.  Consider that Watts spends a great deal of time attacking the quality and trustworthiness of surface temperature stations in this country at his website surfacestations.org, one of whose stated goals is:

Read more

The coal-fueled Chamber may be incredibly shrinking, as more and more members bolt, but it still is looking to do as much damage as possible:

U.S. Chamber pledges to stop Obama agenda, play big role in Nov. elections

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue attacked President Obama’s domestic agenda Tuesday, criticizing Democratic efforts on climate change, health care and oversight of the nation’s financial system.

And he pledged to use the chamber’s might in November’s elections to take on the president’s allies in Congress.

Donohue, speaking at the chamber’s annual State of American Business event, called health care legislation pending in Congress “a prescription for fiscal insolvency and an eventual government takeover of American health care.” He was equally critical of the climate change bill passed by the House last year, saying it “would tie economic activity in knots and eliminate jobs from one end of the country to another.”

The chamber will carry out “the largest, most aggressive” campaign in its 100-year history as it works to influence the outcome of mid-term congressional elections and stop legislation it views as harmful to the economy, he said. “As Americans choose a new House and senators this fall,” Donohue added, “the chamber will highlight lawmakers and candidates who support a pro-jobs agenda and hold accountable those who don’t.”

What Would Failure to Combat Climate Change Quickly Mean?

Read more

[You can get that oil price widget here.]

Just one year ago I had a contest — When will oil hit $100 a barrel?

I picked the end of June this year, to coincide with my 50th birthday, but it looks like this could happen sooner, based on this WSJ article, “Oil Prices: Is OPEC Looking for $100 Crude?“:

Read more

Science writer Chris Mooney was one of my biggest inspirations to become a blogger.  We share a great dissatisfaction with the messaging of scientists (see With science journalism “basically going out of existence,” how should climate scientists deal with well-funded, anti-science disinformation campaign?).  I blogged on the recent Science magazine bombshell that found: Mountaintop “mining permits are being issued despite the preponderance of scientific evidence that impacts are pervasive and irreversible and that mitigation cannot compensate for losses.”

Mooney has a piece at Science Progress “When Scientists Speak Out:  The Power of a Communications Plan,” which looks at how the authors of that study got so much press attention.  Since the climate science community could learn much from these scientists, I’m reprinting it below:

Read more

This Think Progress repost is about health care, but you could just as easily substitute “climate change,” especially if anti-science ideologues are able to kill the bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill.

Read more

NRDC’s Beinecke: “Don’t Create a Dirty Air Act, Protect Alaska from Global Warming Instead”

National Wildlife Federation Senior VP Jeremy Symons discusses the teleconference he moderated yesterday with Clean Skies TV (click here if embed doesn’t show on your screen):

And here is Frances Beinecke, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council, on the NRDC’s Switchboard blog:

Read more

By Tom Kenworthy, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Gov. Bill Ritter (D-CO)

In 2004, Colorado became the first state to pass a renewable energy standard (RES) by popular vote, a measure requiring large utilities to produce 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2015.

Three years later, after it became clear the RES goal of 10 percent was going to be achieved nearly eight years ahead of schedule, the state legislature doubled down with a new 20 percent mandate by 2020.

Now it looks like Xcel Energy, the state’s largest utility, will be able to meet the 20 percent five years ahead of schedule. So Gov. Bill Ritter (D) and legislative leaders are uping the ante once again, making a 30 percent RES by 2020 a priority for the legislative session that begins today.

If approved that would be one of the most ambitious renewable standards in the nation, and well in excess of the federal standard included in the energy and climate bill passed by the U.S. House last June that calls for a combined renewable energy and energy efficiency standard of 20 percent. Only California has a higher standard, 33 percent by 2020, according to the Department of Energy.

In announcing that the higher RES would be near the top of his legislative agenda, Ritter said he was committed to “maintaining Colorado as a national leader” on energy.

Suckered, CNN’s Jack Cafferty asks viewers “Has this winter affected your belief in global warming?”

Newsblusters has approvingly reprinted this bit of classic anti-science illogic from Julie Seymour at the Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute:

The news media constantly misuse extreme weather examples to generate fear of global warming, but when record cold or record snow sets in journalists don’t mention the possibility of global cooling trends.  While climatologists would say weather isn’t necessarily an indication of climate, it has been in the media, but only when the weather could be spun as part of global warming.

As if.  First off, since it isn’t cooling, it would be illogical if not outright dishonest for any major media outlet to do a story on “the possibility of global cooling trends” (see Must-read AP story: Statisticians reject global cooling; Caldeira “” “To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous”).  As AP reported:

Read more