“The ocean is taking up less carbon because of the warming caused by the carbon in the atmosphere,” says [Galen] McKinley, an assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a member of the Center for Climatic Research….

McKinley is the lead author of a new analysis in the journal Nature Geoscience (subs. req’d) that appears to resolve a major issue in climate science:  “How deep is the ocean’s capacity to buffer against climate change?”

We now know that as the ocean warms up, its ability to act as a carbon “sink” is diminishing.  We are seeing a dangerous, amplifying carbon-cycle feedback.

The study’s news release explains:

As one of the planet’s largest single carbon absorbers, the ocean takes up roughly one-third of all human carbon emissions, reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide and its associated global changes.

But “whether the ocean can continue mopping up human-produced carbon at the same rate” wasn’t entirely clear. “Previous studies on the topic have yielded conflicting results.”

Back in 2007, I reported that the long-feared saturation of one the world’s primary carbon sinks had apparently started.  Again in 2009, I discussed a study in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d), “Sudden, considerable reduction in recent uptake of anthropogenic CO₂ by the East/Japan Sea.”  Most, but not all, studies have suggested the ocean was either losing its ability to absorb CO2 or soon would (see list here).

This new study, however, is different and more comprehensive than previous ones:

Read more

ThinkProgress filed this report from Pella, Iowa.

In 1969, a river in Ohio caught on fire and the world watched as flames burned on a polluted body of water. The Cuyahoga conflagration caused only minor damages but ignited a public movement towards environmentalism which ultimately led to the passage of the Clean Water Act and the establishment of the EPA.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich cited the incident as an example of poor stewardship of the environment during a campaign stop Monday with the FAMiLY LEADER Presidential Lecture Series in Pella, Iowa. After calling the EPA a “job-killing, anti-business, anti-local control, Washington-centered radical bureaucracy,” he touted the “common sense steps” taken to successfully clean up and revive the Cuyahoga River:

VANDER PLAATS: Brenda from Pella asks, “What are your views on the care of our creation? Specifically, how would you balance our need for natural resources with God’s command to care for the world?”

GINGRICH: I think that’s a very good question. I used to teach environmental studies. I love the outdoors. I wanted to either be a zoo director or a paleontologist when I was young. I have a real interest in the natural world.

But I’m also in favor of an Environmental Solutions Agency to replace the Environmental Protection Agency. The Environmental Protection Agency has become a job-killing, anti-business, anti-local control, Washington-centered radical bureaucracy. It’s fundamental. You talk to small towns all across Iowa about how much they’re going to be bankrupted by EPA regulations. You talk to farmers about how much EPA now makes no sense at all. I’m not a chemist by background, but the idea we should treat milk as gasoline makes no sense at all. Something happens to bureaucrats in Washington. Common sense leaves and dictatorship enters, and they issue rules that make no sense . . .

When I taught environmental studies, the Cuyahoga River was on fire in Cleveland. Now, I don’t care how conservative you are, you do not want rivers to be on fire. It’s a really bad sign of how much pollution there was. So the steps that we took were common sense that cleaned up the Cuyahoga River, that cleaned up all sorts of places around this country… those are the good steps. We have a cleaner, healthier environment today than we did in 1970.

Watch it:

Although he praises the “cleaner, healthier environment” created by the EPA, he wants to scrap the agency and now regularly attacks the agency for trying to enforce the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act for today’s pollution threats.

The Clean Water Act gave the EPA regulatory rights to monitor the amount of pollution that manufacturing companies dumped into the river. When regulations took effect in 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration found “no visible signs of life, not even low forms such as leeches and sludge worms that usually thrive on wastes”. Today, EPA scientists have found 40 different species of fish. “The Clean Water Act made a big difference early in the effort to clean up the Cuyahoga,” said Jim White, director of the Cuyahoga River Community Planning Organization. “The federal government had the muscle to make things happen.”

For Gingrich, whose campaign has been defined by missteps, his approach to environmental issues rests somewhere between nonsensical and hypocritical.

-Aubrey Murray

1. While coal prices become more volatile, natural gas prices appear more stable (and the cost of renewable energy is dropping fast).

2. The delivered price of coal increased three times faster than inflation over the past five years.

3. States dependent on coal had the highest electricity price increase in the past five years.

4. U.S. Coal mining productivity has declined 20% since 2000.

5. Rising international demand and recognition of environmental costs will continue to drive coal prices upward.

Coal still plays a dominant role in the U.S. energy mix, accounting for almost 45% of American electricity production. But the economics of coal continue to change, making the resource look far less attractive today than it once was.

Researchers, journalists and activist groups have been sounding the alarm about “Peak Coal” in recent years. A 2010 paper in the journal Energy concluded that the global coal industry had reached the limit to what it could technically and economically exploit. Another 2009 analysis from Clean Energy Action based on US Geological Survey data suggested showed that available coal reserves were not as abundant as widely thought:

Read more

By Jessica Goad, Manager of Research and Outreach, Public Lands Project, Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

Today the House Appropriations Committee is debating the FY 2012 spending bill for the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. No less than 25 anti-environment riders — policy provisions not related to spending — were included in the bill. In his opening statement, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), ranking member on the subcommittee, called the bill a “virtual dump truck of special interest legislative riders.”

As ThinkProgress reported on its introduction, the base text of this appropriations bill includes a provision that would block the Department of the Interior from protecting one million acres of land around Grand Canyon National Park from uranium mining. This rider was added by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) as a response to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar’s announcement a few weeks ago of a temporary withdrawal for these lands from mineral development while an environmental analysis is completed.

Moran offered an amendment to strip this rider from the bill, but Republicans rejected it by a 26 to 23 vote. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) stated:

This is the Flake earmark for the mining industry.

The provision has nothing to do with appropriations. Flake and leadership on the committee have received mining industry financial support in the past:

- Flake received contributions from an international mining company in the last election cycle.

- Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID), the chairman of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee, accepted $13,250 from mining industry in 2010 cycle, including $5,000 from the mining industry’s large PAC.

- Hal Rogers (R-KY), chairman of the entire appropriations committee, has received $331,475 in contributions from the mining industry over the course of his career, his number-one contributor.

Nonetheless, Flake continued to denounce the Department of the Interior’s attempt to protect the Grand Canyon as a political move, “What is ‘special interest,’ if anything, if taking one part of this, uranium mining, and removing it for 20 years.”

Flake did not seem to take into account that the Interior Department is acting on advice from the 300,000 comments that it received on its draft withdrawal plans, many of which were in favor of the decision including the Sedona Chamber of Commerce.

The Grand Canyon is one of our nation’s most visited and economically important national parks. The park provided over 5,000 jobs and $412 million in economic returns in 2009, from the over 4 million visitors who came to the park that year. If this rider moves forward, tourism from many sectors could be greatly impacted. As Jim Stipe, chairman of the Arizona Council of Trout Unlimited stated today, “Uranium mining threatens to pollute our clean water and spoil habitat for fish and big game near the Grand Canyon. Fishing and hunting are big business in Arizona, especially near the Grand Canyon, and have been for generations.”

In a bold response to the recent oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and Yellowstone River, House Republicans are marking up a FY 2012 appropriations bill today that would cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency to 1999 levels, slash the agency’s oil spill prevention budget, and fail to provide additional resources for Deepwater Horizon victims.

Below is a brief summary of the funding levels set by the GOP majority in the Interior & Environment Appropriations bill report language for FY12:

Don’t Protect Kids — Protect BP: “The Committee’s recommended level also does not provide additional resources for the air toxic monitoring at schools or for the Deepwater Horizon litigation.” (page 62)

Slash The Oil Spill Prevention Budget, But Call It A ‘Priority’: “The Committee has not provided an additional $5,100,000 and 16 FTE requested for increased facility inspections under the latest SPCC [Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure] rule, but recognizes these activities will be a priority within base funds.” (Pg. 76)

Ignore Cancer Risk Of Arsenic: “The Committee directs that no further action be taken to post EPA’s 2010 draft cancer assessment of inorganic arsenic as final or for the use of any risk values from this assessment in federal regulatory or permitting decisions pending the completion of the NAS study.” [The National Academy of Sciences study referred to could take more than a year to complete.] (pg. 60)

The budget also rolls back the EPA to the Bush years — the George H. W. Bush years, that is.

Regulate Like It’s 1990: “EPA’s justification identifies over 300 air toxics rules that need to be under development by fiscal year 2012.  At the same time, no new legislation has passed since 1990 mandating that EPA engage in these rulemakings.  This is the clearest example of EPA’s regulatory agenda running out of control and it must be tempered.” (pg. 61)

Slash EPA Staff To 1992 Levels: “the Agency is directed to bring the headquarters FTE in line with the regional FTE and to cap its FTE level at no more than the fiscal year 2010 level of 16,594 which is 609 FTE blow the budget request, and the Agency’s lowest FTE utilization level since 1992.” (pg. 71)

Republicans also believe all means of enforcing compliance with EPA Rules are pointless: “The Committee rejects the $9,631,000 proposed increase for the Regaining Ground in Compliance Initiative on the grounds that additional monitoring, inspections, and reporting are not the solutions to improving compliance.” (pg. 62)

If monitoring, inspections, and reporting “are not the solutions to improving compliance,” then what is?

Read the entire Report for the FY12 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill.

Vice President Al Gore has shaken up his vast climate organization to address the new reality of climate pollution. He has retooled his non-profit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, as the Climate Reality Project, to “focus the world’s attention on the full truth, scope, scale and impact of the climate crisis.” On September 14th-15th, Climate Reality will go through each of the 24 time zones of the world, with new versions of Gore’s signature slideshows showing how climate disasters are wreaking havoc in every corner of the globe. The presentations will start in Mexico City and end a day later in New York City with Al Gore.

Watch the launch video, “24 Hours of Reality“:

At Climate Reality, president Maggie Fox explains that the threat of greenhouse pollution has changed from a problem of future generations to one that is degrading our life now:

We have known about climate change for decades. Yet now, we are seeing and experiencing the extreme weather that scientists have long told us to expect in a warming world. Floods. Heat waves. Droughts. Historic storms. These cataclysmic events are occurring all over the world with increasing frequency. This is not normal. A“new normal” is emerging. And these events will only become more frequent and severe if we continue to pollute our air.

Joe Romm interviews Gore about the project at Climate Progress.

Today, Former Vice President Gore launched The Climate Reality Project “to broadcast the reality of the climate crisis and mobilize citizens to help solve it.”

In an exclusive extended interview with Climate Progress, the Nobel-Prize winning champion of climate action discussed the “24 Hours of Reality” — a worldwide, live streamed event this September.  He explained to CP why he strongly disagrees with those who suggest we are talking about climate change too much and and why he is making the link between extreme weather and global warming a major focus of his effort.

Let’s start with why he launched The Climate Reality Project, and why he changed the name of his effort from Alliance for Climate Protection.  The short answer is that the goal of the group is  to explain that the impacts of human-caused climate change are reality now (much as the solutions to human-caused climate change are reality now):

Read more

The House is voting today on amendments to an energy and water-related appropriations bill, with Republican leaders proposing to cut billions of dollars in funds for renewable energy and Democrats attempting to shift funds from fossil energy research into clean energy.

Republican proposals include cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from renewable energy R&D programs. Amendments on the table include:

• An amendment by Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga. to reduce funding provided for energy efficiency projects related to clean vehicle technology by $27 million.

• An amendment by Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., to reduce funding for energy efficiency programs related to new vehicle technology by $46 million.

• An amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett, R-NJ, to reduce funding in the bill provided for energy related research and science by $500 million.

• An amendment by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., to reduce funding in the bill provided for solar power research and development by $166 million.

Democratic amendments include increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy funding by moving funds from nuclear and fossil energy programs.

• An amendment by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., to increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by $100 million. The increase would be offset by reducing funding for nuclear energy and fossil fuel energy research by $50 million each.

• An amendment by Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, D-Va., to increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by $46 million. The increase would be offset by reducing funding for fossil fuel energy research by $99 million

• An amendment by Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., to increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by $24 million. The increase would be offset by reducing funding for fossil fuel energy and research by $50 million.

Read more

A round-up of climate and energy news. Please post other stories below.

Solar Silicon Prices to Continue Falling as Asian Bigs Ramp Up Capacity in Bid to Gain Market Share

Polysilicon supply looks set to continue growing at a fast clip, as Asia’s largest producers of polysilicon — the basic material used in making solar photovoltaic cells — appear intent on pursuing a cutthroat strategy of gaining market share by flooding the market with supply. It’s a strategy that Chinese solar panel makers have used to capture more than half the growing, worldwide market for solar panels, a Bloomberg news report notes.

Read more

In an act of journalistic malfeasance, the New York Times published a pair of stories on the record drought and heat wave scouring the American south that ignore the influence of greenhouse pollution. In “100-Degree Heat Is This Summer’s Norm in Central U.S.,” Timothy Williams writes that “among the reasons for the scorching temperatures was a high-pressure pattern that had stubbornly stayed over much of the country’s midsection.” In “Drought Spreads Its Pain Across 14 States,” Kim Severson and Kirk Johnson cite a “strong La Niña.”

This meteorological myopia is, as renowned climatologist Kevin Trenberth said of similar coverage, “irresponsible.” At Climate Progress, Joe Romm discusses what scientists know about how global warming pollution is reshaping the American south.

by Tripp Brockway

The United States is yet again falling behind in the most important economic, social, and environmental issue of the 21^st century. On Sunday, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced her plan for a comprehensive clean energy policy. By doing so, Gillard has established Australia, the highest per capita carbon emitting country in the developed world, as a much needed international leader in the effort to address climate change.

Gillard’s plan has a realistic chance of passing votes in both houses of the Australian Parliament within the year. It includes a $23 per ton price on carbon, set to start on July 1, 2012, that will generate about $24.5 billion in revenue by 2015. Only the 500 biggest polluters in the country will pay the tax, which will exclude the forestry, agriculture, and transportation sectors. After three years, the price on carbon will be replaced by a market-based emissions trading system.

The Gillard administration is embracing the carbon-reduction plan as a way to stimulate the economy and keep Australia competitive.  It is designed to protect consumers and ensure a smooth transition for industry.  Gillard’s proposal includes targeted tax cuts and rebates for consumers drawn from the revenue generated by the carbon price, ensuring that the average Australian does not suffer if businesses pass on their costs.

Read more

by Daniel J. Weiss

The Audacity of Nope: Republicans embrace Marxism

Groucho Marx, that is:

Lately it seems that the House Republican leadership is against everything that isn’t pre-approved by Big Oil or the Tea Party. Perhaps the most outlandish example of this Groucho Marx approach to public policy is today’s vote on the BULB Act, H.R. 2417. It would repeal the energy efficiency standards for light bulbs established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, or EISA, P.L. 110-140. It would also prevent California from setting its own light bulb efficiency standards. The original author of the provision is House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI), who is now supporting the repeal of his own idea after conservatives attacked it along with other clean energy programs.

EISA, with Rep. Upton’s efficiency measure, passed the House in 2007 by a bipartisan vote of 319-100, with support from 49.7 percent of Republicans who voted and 98 percent of Democratic votes. President George W. Bush signed it into law.

Afterwards, Rep. Upton bragged in a press release, “Upton Measure to Upgrade Energy Efficiency Standards for all Light Bulbs Now Law”:

Current incandescent bulbs on store shelves are obsolete and highly inefficient—only 10% of the energy consumed by each bulb is for light with 90% wasted on unnecessary heat. Today’s incandescent bulbs employ the same technology as the bulbs Thomas Edison first created over 120 years ago.

This common sense, bipartisan approach partners with American industry to save energy as well as help foster the creation of new domestic manufacturing jobs. By upgrading to more efficient light bulbs, we will help preserve energy resources and reduce harmful emission [sic], all the while saving American families billions of dollars in their electric bills—and the benefits will be as easy as a flip of the switch.

Interestingly, this press release was removed from Rep. Upton’s website.

Read more