A new government report estimates that three quarters of the two-hundred-million-gallon BP oil disaster remains in the Gulf of Mexico region in some form, with about one hundred million gallons of oil still of concern. The massive effort to burn and skim oil captured only eight percent of the total, confirming fears that the skimming operations would be largely ineffective. Most of the oil — 52 percent — has been dispersed or dissolved, either naturally or by the use of chemical dispersants. TNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of the Interior scientists believe that uncaptured oil is in the process of evaporating or dissolving, hopefully with little toxic effect. About 50 million gallons of oil — five times the Exxon Valdez spill — has either washed ashore or is in the remaining slicks that surround Louisiana’s marshes. Some government officials and news organizations gave an unusually rosy picture of the report’s findings:

Associated Press: “Report: Only one quarter of oil left in Gulf”

New York Times: “Oil in Gulf Poses Only Slight Risk, New U.S. Report Says”

Carol Browner, presidential energy adviser: “I think it’s also important to note that our scientists have done an initial assessment and more than three quarters of the oil is gone. The vast majority of the oil is gone. It was captured. It was skimmed. It it was burned. It was contained.”

Watch Browner on NBC’s Today Show:

“Let’s look at this another way,” marine conservationist Rick Steiner, a retired University of Alaska scientist, told McClatchy, “that there’s some 50 percent of the oil left. It’s still there in the environment.”

NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, while claiming that there is “a negligible amount of oil at the surface,” expressed serious concerns about the invisibly dispersed oil. “The oil that is in tiny droplets may be toxic,” she said at a White House press briefing. “We do remain concerned about the oil in the subsurface. Effects of this spill will likely linger for decades.”

The unusually precise figures being reported by the government are built on “educated scientific guesses,” admitted NOAA emergency response senior scientist Bill Lehr. “There’s some science here, but mostly, it’s spin,” oil spill expert Ian McDonald, a scientist with Florida State Univerisity, told NPR. “And it breaks my heart to see them do it.”

Natural degradation of the oil does not come without environmental cost. As bacteria multiply to consume the hydrocarbons, they deplete the ocean of oxygen, exacerbating the huge dead zone along Louisiana waters induced by agricultural pollution and global warming. “The microbial community is going to break this down, but it doesn’t come for free,” Dr. Mandy Joye, a marine scientist at the University of Georgia, told EarthSky. “It comes at the expense of the oxygen budget of the system, and that’s something that’s not easily corrected.”

The New York Times backpedaled a bit today, reporting that its claims the oil was “disappearing” have been met with “skepticism if not outright distrust.” Instead of admitting her paper had misinterpreted the report, however, reporter Campbell Robertson blamed “environmental groups that came to the gulf in droves, lawyers who have been soliciting clients from billboards along roads leading south, a sensation-hungry news media and politicians who have gained broad popularity for thundering in opposition to response officials.”

NYT: “Russia Bans Grain Exports After Drought Shrivels Crop”

Russia is being devastated by extreme weather  — and their leaders aren’t silent on what they think the cause is.  On Thursday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev spoke to a Russian Security Council meeting on the ongoing threat of wildfires associated with the country’s heatwave and drought:

“…our country has not experienced such a heat wave in the last 50 or even 100 years… I want to say that this is, of course, a severe trial for our country, a great trial indeed. But at the same time, we are not alone in facing these hardships, for other countries too have gone through such trials and, despite all the difficulties, have managed to cope with the situation. … Overall, we need to learn our lessons from what has happened, and from the unprecedented heat wave that we have faced this summer.

None of us can say what the next summer will be like. The forecasts vary greatly. Everyone is talking about climate change now. Unfortunately, what is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change, because we have never in our history faced such weather conditions in the past. This means that we need to change the way we work, change the methods that we used in the past.”

Well, everyone is talking about climate change is now — except maybe major U.S. media outlets like the New York Times.  The NYT reports today:

Russia  banned all exports of grain on Thursday after millions of acres of wheat withered in a severe drought, a portentous decision at a time when crop failures caused by heat and flooding span the northern hemisphere.

And the Times goes on to explain that wheat prices have “increased about 90 percent since June because of the drought in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and parts of the European Union, and floods in Canada.” But it is all just random series of coincidences to the Times (see “As nation, Russia, and world swelter under record-smashing heat waves, The NYTimes sets one-day record for most unilluminating stories“).

But not to the Russian president.  Last Friday, in remarks to the heads of international sports federations, Medvedev said:

Read more

Daniel J. Weiss, one of CAP’s experts on energy and climate policy, is taking questions through Facebook on the oil disaster response bill and other climate and energy issues.

Head on over to CAP’s Facebook page by the end of the day to post your question on their wall.  It could be selected to be answered in Dan’s next “Ask the Expert” video:

Read more

This post is part of a Progressive Media blogging series on the fossil fuel-funded Prop 23 effort to repeal California’s clean energy climate law. Read Rebecca Lefton’s posts on Prop 23′s economic impact, national repercussions, and funding from Texas oil companies.

Working with veteran tobacco lobbyists in Sacramento, Texan oil companies are orchestrating a campaign to roll back California’s landmark clean energy climate change law, AB 32. So far, the largest donations have came from San Antonio-based Valero, which has ponied up over $1 million for the effort, and refining giant Tesoro, also based in San Antonio, contributing $525,000. Today, the Sacramento Bee reports that state Democrats are asking Attorney General Eric Holder to open an investigation into these donations.

In public, the repeal AB 32 campaign — given the Orwellian moniker “California Jobs Initiative” — says it is about helping low income people, small businesses, and improving the California economy. But behind closed doors, it’s about boosting already sky high oil company profits. According to Valero’s 10-Q corporate disclosure forms, the company views compliance with AB 32 as a risk to their bottom line.

According to a PowerPoint presentation obtained by the Wonk Room, Tesoro has been courting other oil companies to join their crusade to rescind AB 32. At an April 13th presentation to the Western States Petroleum Association, Dave Reed, a Tesoro refinery executive in Los Angeles, pitched his clean energy repeal initiative, Proposition 23. The Western States Petroleum Association is an oil trade group, like the American Petroleum Institute on the national level, that advocates for the interests of their industry, including expanded offshore drilling off California’s coast. The Association is made up of many oil companies operating in California, including BP, ExxonMobil, and Shell Pipeline. Reed’s PowerPoint drives home the message that cleaning the air and diversifying California’s energy sources will have a negative “impact on [Tesoro's] business.” View a screenshot of Page 15 of the presentation below:

Shortly after Reed’s presentation, three Western States Petroleum Association members — Venoco, Occidental Oil and Gas, and Berry Petroleum — donated to the Prop 23 campaign. Other Association members, like BP and ExxonMobil, have remained quiet — although it is possible these companies are secretly funneling their donations through fronts like the Adam Smith Foundation, a Missouri-based nonprofit that is mysteriously financing the repeal AB 32 campaign.

Leading Prop 23 proponent Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Linda) told the Wonk Room that he expects that his effort will raise a whopping $50 million. To date, Chevron has explicitly steered clear of the Prop 23 campaign. To gain extra funds, Valero lobbyist Mike Carpenter, a former top Philip Morris political operative, has spent the past few months recruiting other trade association support for the initiative, spending April meeting with groups like the California League of Food Processors.

Former Secretary of State and Treasury: “There’s a climate problem connected with the burning of fossil fuels…. The basic facts are pretty clear.”

Former U.S. secretary of State George P. Shultz believes it’s crucial to fight global warming to protect national security.

Global warming is created by burning fossil fuel, he says, and payments for foreign oil sometimes wind up financing terrorism.

And Shultz, who’s also a former Treasury secretary, thinks the nation suffers an “economic vulnerability” because of its oil addiction….

The L.A. Times article notes that “the man who set up the Environmental Protection Agency four decades ago,” also added:

There’s a climate problem connected with the burning of fossil fuels….  The basic facts are pretty clear.

“So we have a three-pronged set of problems” created by greenhouse gases, he says. “Security, economic and environmental.”

This post is part of a series on the fossil fuel-funded Proposition 23 effort to repeal California’s clean energy and climate laws. Read previous posts on Prop 23′s economic impact, national repercussions, and funding from Texas oil companies.  Here’s more from the LAT piece on the background of a dying breed — a conservative Republican who is willing to champion climate science and clean energy:

Read more

Major Mojave project clears critical hurdle

One of California’s biggest proposed solar energy projects won preliminary approval today from state regulators. BrightSource Energy Inc.’s Ivanpah power plant development in the Mojave Desert gained tentative approval from the California Energy Commission, triggering a 30-day comment period that will likely end in final permits for the Oakland-based company.

Read more

Until now, the Institute for Energy Research has best been known as an anti-science polluter front-group trying to kill the clean energy bill.

But in a devastating front-page story yesterday, “BP’s fight against energy nonprofit highlights murky world of advocacy-for-hire,” the Washington Post reveals that the IER won’t support just any polluter:

Read more

Guest blogger Bill Becker is executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project. He discusses a new PCAP report that details several ways  President Obama can cut emissions using powers past Congress’s have already delegated to the Executive Branch.

Read more

The Department of Energy has launched a blog of its own.  Secretary of Energy Chu explains it is “to show you who we are, what we do, and why it matters to you, while allowing you to connect with us in new and creative ways.”

From time to time, I will highlight their best posts.  Here is one from Arun Majumdar, Director for the Advanced Research Projects Agency — Energy, “The Reality of Solar Panels at 50% Cost“:

Read more