New conservative policy shop to be headed by a one-time supporter of cap-and-trade!!

I don’t normally agree with the uber-conservative American Spectator — and vice versa (see here).   But there is, as they say, a first time for everything.

In a piece titled, “Norm Coleman’s Right-Wing CAP,” their assistant managing editor writes about the Center for American Progress (CAP), where I work:

Another feature that sets CAP apart from the right-wing organizations is its messaging operation. It was a leader in sending out a daily briefing and using blogs to disseminate research, which are both now common practices among think tanks. But it also took the unusual step of hiring professional bloggers to spread its ideas. Joseph Romm, a giant among environmental experts, blogs for their climateprogess.org. And CAP hired Matt Yglesias, a prominent young liberal blogger, away from the Atlantic to blog under their umbrella.

Thanks.  Let me tell you this kind of thing is very helpful around performance evaluation time.

I do, of course, have to correct one mistake here, which long-time readers may spot….

Read more

In a series of hard-hitting television ads, a liberal veterans advocacy organization challenges Republican lawmakers for blocking clean energy legislation that would cut oil funds to terrorists. As part of a $2 million television ad campaign, VoteVets has released a national spot as well as ones targeting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), and Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) for their opposition to climate and clean energy legislation. Other ads challenge representatives in Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, and South Dakota. As the spots point out, each member has taken thousands of dollars from oil companies that have operations in nations like Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Nigeria, and Algeria. The national ad explains the connection between our dependence on oil and terrorists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab:

Terrorists. They’re trying to kill Americans at home and our troops abroad. And who’s footing the bill for the attacks against us? Oil money. Filtered through secret organizations in the Middle East and countries like Iran. When oil money hands up in the hands of our enemies, Americans pay the ultimate price. We’ve got to protect ourselves and end our dependence on foreign oil. Tell Congress: Pass the Clean Energy and American Power Act now.

Watch it:

The local spots are unflinching, featuring local veterans of the Iraq War. Veteran Benjamin Cossel, of Pine Bluffs, WY tells Sen. Barrasso to “decide whose side he’s on” — the terrorist-enabling oil companies that have given him $50,500, or the American people:

For thirty years, we’ve been warned about the danger of spending billions of dollars oil. The United States military calls it a major threat to our security. And on Christmas Day over Detroit, we were reminded again how oil money can support terrorism against us. But even today, Sen. John Barrasso won’t break our addiction. And he won’t break his own. Call Sen. Barrasso. It’s time for him to decide whose side he’s on.

“Hockey Stick” scientist vindicated once again

An academic inquiry into the so-called “climategate” email scandal has concluded that a well-known U.S. scientist did not directly or indirectly falsify data in his research.

The review, by a panel of senior administrators at Pennsylvania State University, found no evidence that climatologist Michael Mann had manipulated research that indicates humans are causing global warming.

This finding is a big setback for the anti-science crowd, who have been going after Mann full throttle, trying to find imaginary whistleblowers to accuse him and others at Penn State of fraud (see “Anti-science disinformers step up efforts to intimidate and harass climate scientists.”

The anti-scientists hate Mann, one of the country’s leading climatologists, for his role in creating the Hockey Stick graph, which they still maintain is fraudulent, when in fact it was essentially vindicated in a thorough examination by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences (see NAS Report and here).

Even more important than the fact that the original analysis was defensibly correct, is that the conclusions were correct [which could be true even if the analysis had flaws in it].   Is the planet now as hot (or hotter) than it has been in a millenium?  Try two millennia — see “Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years,” which discusses the PNAS study that is the source of the above graph.

Note that the myth pushed by the anti-science disinformers — that somehow the recent warming is merely a rebound from the so-called “little ice age” — has no basis in the data.  We have blown past the temperatures of the past two millenia.  That’s why climatologist and one-time darling of the contrarians Ken Caldeira said last year, “To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous.”

Another study vindicating this conclusion is “Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, ‘seminal’ study finds,” with this terrific graph I used in my talk yesterday:

Read more

The event was a big success, I thought, mainly because we had two top climate scientists, Christopher Field and Michael MacCracken, who had a lot of experience with the IPCC.

Some people complained that you couldn’t see the PPTs.  So we have posted them here, which you can open in a separate window while you watch this:

But questions remain about counting lifecyle emissions from and indirect land use

Guest blogger Jake Caldwell is the Director for Agriculture, Trade and Energy Policy at American Progress.

The United States must reduce our dependence on oil – one fifth of which comes from nations that are “dangerous or unstable” for travelers according to the State Department. Surface transportation is responsible for 65 percent of our oil use, so using less in cars and trucks provides the biggest opportunity for reductions. There are a number of important measures to reduce oil use, including significantly more efficient fuel economy standards, investments in public transportation and high speed rail, and the production and use of alternative fuels, including natural gas and advanced biofuels. Each of these steps can increase energy independence by reducing oil use by millions of barrels.

Advanced, cellulosic biofuels — made from agricultural waste, wood chips, or low input crops such as switchgrass — hold great promise to reduce oil use and greenhouse gas pollution. Advanced biofuels that deliver measurable life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, minimize the use of food based feedstocks and, minimize public health and environmental impacts should be encouraged. But, in order to capture the promise of advanced biofuels, we must also make the short term investments in the infrastructure for the current generation of biofuels.

On Wednesday, President Obama announced three key initiatives to build this infrastructure so that we can increase biofuel production, improve nationwide efforts in the development of biofuels, and lessen our dependence on oil.

Read more

To get clean energy, upgrade to Electricity 2.0

While clean energy has captured the imagination of everyone from Silicon Valley venture capitalists to President Obama, it has yet to fulfill its job-creation promise. Non-hydro renewable power accounts for just 3.5 percent of electricity in the United States, compared with 28 percent in Denmark, a leader in the transition to renewable energy. In a study released today, I examine why progress has been so slow in the electricity industry – the network at the center of the wider energy network. The answer turns out to be that our highly regulated system, uniquely complex by global standards, is blocking progress.

Put simply, only by upgrading from Electricity 1.0 – the closed, highly regulated network created a century ago – to Electricity 2.0 – an open, distributed network – can America unlock the potential of clean technology and experience a renewable energy revolution.

It is often said that an inadequate electric grid is slowing the rollout of clean renewable energy. But why is the grid inadequate? Because the regulatory regime of Electricity 1.0 guarantees the current state of affairs. While the industry research consortium, Electric Power Research Institute, has done an outstanding job in improving the reliability of the network, utilities do virtually no research and development. Laws bar them from trying new business models, innovating and taking risks. This bias against innovation prevents utilities from purchasing technologies developed by others. Thus, entrepreneurs find the gates of the network closed. It should not be surprising that a highly regulated industry cannot lead a revolution.

So, how can America upgrade to Electricity 2.0? As with telecom reform, Electricity 2.0 will require nothing less than a Big Bang that includes federal legislation as well as close cooperation with the states to harmonize rules of the road. Partial reform, such as has taken place in Texas and California, is a start, but it is not enough. What’s needed is an entirely new plug-and-play architecture that opens the grid to everyone, making connection the norm not the exception.

And then we have this bombshell about ‘Smokey Joe’ Barton who thinks Global Warming ‘Is A Net Benefit To Mankind’ and who loves TVMOB aka Lord “Hitler Youth” Monckton (see Rep. Barton: Climate change is ‘natural,’ humans should just ‘get shade’ “” invites ‘expert’ TVMOB (!) to testify).

Barton earned $100K from gas investment

Read more

A climate bill without any emissions cap may be politically unworkable, as we’ve seen — Stick a fork in the energy-only bill: Lindsey Graham (R-SC) slams push for a “half-assed energy bill”.

Because of the challenge of getting 60 votes for an economy-wide emissions cap, some folks are pursuing the idea of a climate bill with a cap just on utility emissions.

I have serious doubts that works politically.  I have bigger doubts that such a bill would satisfy the requirements needed for a good bill, not the least of which is that it must enable a global deal, which requires meeting the U.S. promise of close to a 17% emissions reduction in total U.S. GHG emissions by 2020.  The utility sector covers about one third of U.S. emissions, and a utility-only bill is not going to require, say, a 50% reduction in utility emissions by 2020.  Indeed, it would likely be far less.

As E&E News (subs. req’d) reports today, “it is far from certain that Senate politics would be any different if lawmakers set aside the House-passed economywide approach that goes after major energy, transportation and manufacturing companies — accounting for more than two-thirds of U.S. emissions.”

Not surprisingly, utilities, which were key to passage of the first ever climate bill in the House, aren’t signing up to be the sole focus of emissions reductions:

Read more

UPDATE:  Amazingly, economist Richard Tol in the comments section appears to argue repeatedly argues that he and Pielke are indeed climate scientists.  Pielke, not surprisingly, makes no such assertion.

In Science magazine’s “News of the Week” section (subs. req’d) they hype a piece on their blog:

Writing in Der Spiegel, three prominent climate scientists have criticized the policies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its chair, Rajendra Kumar Pachauri. The Wall Street Journal reprinted the column, which says the panel should adopt conflict-of-interest policies, a mechanism for dealing with errors, and more transparent policies for selecting its leadership and authors.

You won’t a surprise to learn that an opinion piece reprinted by the uber-anti-science editors at the WSJ isn’t in fact written by “three prominent climate scientists.”

In fact, as that piece explains, the piece was actually written by “Richard Tol, Roger Pielke, and Hans von Storch.”

Seriously.

Memo to Science:  Two of the people you call “prominent climate scientists” aren’t even climate scientists!

Read more