Daily Arctic sea ice extent as of July 17, 2011, along with daily ice extents for previous low-ice-extent years. Light blue indicates 2011, dashed green shows 2007, dark blue shows 2010, and dark gray shows the 1979 to 2000 average.

As the country swelters, ice and snow melt in the North.   The National Snow and Ice Data Center has just issued an update on this year’s version of the Arctic death spiral, concluding:

Arctic sea ice extent declined at a rapid pace through the first half of July, and is now tracking below the year 2007, which saw the record minimum September extent. The rapid decline in the past few weeks is related to persistent above-average temperatures and an early start to melt.

In fact, “air temperatures over the North Pole were 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than normal.”

The NSIDC also published a helpful backgrounder, “Heading towards the summer minimum ice extent, on NSIDC’s new Icelights: Your burning questions about ice and climate.” It quotes NSIDC researcher Walt Meier explaining that while  individual years may  fluctuate, “the overall long-term trend will continue downward.”

Here are more excerpts from the sea ice update:

Read more

Climate Progress previously reported on a Brookings Institution study, “Sizing the Clean Economy.” It demonstrated the “Clean Economy” has started delivering on its promise of high-wage jobs.

The Christian Science Monitor just did a nice article on the study, “Report: More Americans have green jobs than oil or gas jobs.”  They did a nicer graphic than the one we reposted from the study (see above).  The article also notes:

Lighting standards adopted by Congress in 2007 have also created at least 12,500 jobs by fueling the growth of new, greener technologies, according to separate data from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.  The US House recently tried to overturn those regulations…

by Tripp Brockway and Raj Salhotra

Only ten percent of Mozambique’s population has access to the country’s electricity grid. Without electricity, subsistence farming is less viable, students cannot study at night, and hospitals cannot store vaccines. The lack of power is a drag on Mozambique’s economic development and an obstacle to improving the well-being of its people.

But this is not another clichéd story about how the West must save Africa from poverty. Instead, it is a story about how to provide electricity, in an environmentally and economically intelligent manner, to the 85% of people in rural sub-Saharan Africa who lack it.  It is a story about how to leverage efficiently local knowledge and resources.  It is a story about innovation, a story from which the developed world can learn.

In 2009, Jason Morenikeji started The Clean Energy Company in Mozambique. Morenikeji’s company provides small-scale, off-grid renewable energy along Mozambique’s “wind-strong” coastline. The company focuses on the design, construction, and installation of micro wind turbines that can be tailored to fit local needs and combined with other renewable energy sources, such as solar photovoltaics (PV).

By manufacturing the micro-turbines locally, Morenikeji’s company creates jobs and lifts people out of poverty. This is one of many ways that independent electricity generation, particularly from renewable sources, can be crucial for addressing the challenges of socio-economic development such as education, food security, and health.

Independently-powered micro-grids can provide lighting for students to study at night. Studies have found an almost two-year difference in education levels between children in electrified households as compared to those in homes without power. A good education gives students the skills necessary to achieve stable employment and higher income.

Read more

The government is too strapped for cash to prevent the “imminent” extinction of a critical member of the Rocky Mountain forests, the Obama administration has determined. On Monday, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declared that global warming pollution is causing the spread of the pine bark beetle and white pine blister rust into the the once-cold Rockies, killing off the whitebark pine in staggering numbers. However, because of budgetary limits, the service said it would defer instituting any attempt to save the trees:

The Fish and Wildlife Service determined Monday that whitebark pine, a tree found atop mountains across the American West, faces an “imminent” risk of extinction because of factors including climate change. The decision is significant because it marks the first time the federal government has identified climate change as one of the driving factors for why a broad-ranging tree species could disappear. The Canadian government has already declared whitebark pine to be endangered throughout its entire range; a recent study found that 80 percent of whitebark pine forests in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem are dead or dying. The Natural Resources Defense Council asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to place the tree on the endangered species list. In its determination, the agency said that it found a listing was “warranted but precluded,” meaning the pine deserved federal protection but the government could not afford it.

There are now 265 candidate species waiting for protection — or until their extinction eliminates the urgency.

The whitebark pine has been in decline for decades. Protection requested over 10 years ago, in February 1991, was rejected in 1994. Since then, the collapse of the species, which sustains the entire ecosystem from nutcrackers to grizzlies, has been “dramatic and catastrophic.”

Our ability to be responsible stewards of the planet is likely to get even worse, thanks to the Tea Party. “This month, the House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee voted to eliminate any funds for listing species under the Endangered Species Act as part of the 2012 budget,” the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin notes.

The polar bear, elkhorn coral, and staghorn coral are all species listed as threatened because of global warming, but with the caveat that no action be taken to fight greenhouse pollution.

The United Nations Security Council, the most powerful body within the international diplomatic assembly, will discuss climate change tomorrow. In 2007, when the council debated climate policy for the first time, it did so over the objections of many nations, who believed that the issue should be handled by the general assembly and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Because of the frustrating record of attempts in Copenhagen and Cancun to build a successor to the Kyoto Protocol and the rising impacts of global warming pollution around the world, this time the most vulnerable nations are supporting the Security Council’s involvement. In an impassioned New York Times op-ed, Marcus Stephen, the president of the small island nation of Nauru, called for strong action by the council:

First, the Security Council should join the General Assembly in recognizing climate change as a threat to international peace and security. It is a threat as great as nuclear proliferation or global terrorism. Second, a special representative on climate and security should be appointed. Third, we must assess whether the United Nations system is itself capable of responding to a crisis of this magnitude.

Nauru’s economy is in tatters, as the tiny island, smaller than Manhattan, was denuded for phosphate mining. The planet, he warns, is headed towards a future of resource collapse like his own nation’s, “with the relentless burning of coal and oil, which is altering the planet’s climate, melting ice caps, making oceans more acidic and edging us ever closer to a day when no one will be able to take clean water, fertile soil or abundant food for granted.”

Looking back a little more than a year into the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, three things are clearly evident: first, BP believes the worst of the environmental and economic damage to the region has past; second, new evidence shows that the company is clearly mistaken; and third, BP’s main priority is to improve their ruined public image.

Earlier this month BP claimed that the Gulf Coast economy is now booming:

Multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that, to the extent that portions of the Gulf economy were impacted by the spill, recovery had occurred by the end of 2010, and that positive economic performance continues into 2011, with 2011 economic metrics exceeding pre-spill performance.

BP argued that “there is no basis to assume that claimants, with very limited exceptions, will incur a future loss related to the spill.” Echoing this sentiment of “economic progress,” BP’s claims administrator Ken Feinberg proudly stated, “I’ve used just over $4 billion, (and) I don’t envision a flood of new claims.” Feinberg used only one fifth of the money set aside to assist victims of the spill, and has recently closed down eight regional offices because he believes the claims have almost stopped.

Reality paints a bleak picture for the future of the region. Just last week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that “crude oil continues to wash ashore along the Gulf of Mexico coast a year after” the BP oil rig exploded and 4.9 million barrels of oil spewed into the environment. Furthermore, the agency stated that “23 percent of the oil the government couldn’t account for may have settled to the bottom of the sea or remained suspended in the water as tart balls that will eventually wash ashore.” Even worse, the NOAA reported that as of July 9, “close to 500 miles of coastline in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida were still contaminated with oil from the spill.”

Local communities are challenging BP’s blanket claims of “positive economic growth” in 2011. The Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a field hearing in Pensacola, Florida to discuss recovery efforts and the economic impact the spill has had on the small tourism-based economy. The overall concern, echoed by state officials and business members alike, was that of long-term environmental and economic “uncertainty.”

BP recently released a statement that it will “voluntarily impose a series of additional offshore drilling standards for its Gulf of Mexico operations.” These new “self regulated” rules are potential steps in the right direction to ensure that another environmental disaster does not occur in the region. Without enforcement, however, they amount to little more than an attempt to repair the negative image of the company.

A year out, BP is still battling with the initial fact that they caused the “worst environmental disaster America has ever faced.”

-Samantha Sanfilippo, CAP Summer Intern, and resident of the Gulf Coast region.

There have been countless independent investigations into the scientists whose e-mails were hacked in November 2009.  And the scientists have been (quietly) vindicated every time (see “The first rule of vindicating climate science is you do not talk about vindicating climate science“).

But we still don’t know who hacked the emails! And now we know that one of the key investigative bodies tasked with tracking down the hackers — Scotland Yard –  were compromised at the time.

How were they compromised?  Neil Wallis — the former News of the World executive editor — became a “£1,000 a day” consultant to Scotland Yard in October 2009.  Last week he became the ninth person arrested in the metastasizing News Corp scandal “on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications, contrary to section 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977.”

Certainly Wallis had plenty of motive to join Scotland Yard just to keep an eye on the investigation into the phone-hacking scandal.  Indeed, the NY Times reports Wallis “was reporting back to News International while he was working for the police on the hacking case.”  But this also suggests how corrupt Wallis was — and how corrupted Scotland Yard was.

In the light of the News Corp phone-hacking scandal, it is clear that Murdoch’s outfit had means, motive, and opportunity for the Climategate email hacking.  News Corp certainly has a history of defaming climate scientists and a penchant for hacking.

Indeed, in this country, a division of News Corp had a federal case brought against it for “hacking its way into Floorgraphics’s password protected computer system.”  The complaint said News America had “illegally accessed plaintiff’s computer system and obtained proprietary information” and “disseminated false, misleading and malicious information about the plaintiff.”  Sounds familiar, no?

After a few days of testimony, News Corp “settled with Floorgraphics for $29.5 million and then, days later, bought it, even though it reportedly had sales of less than $1 million.”  This behavior simply wasn’t a big shock to News Corp.

So News Corp would obviously now be on the top of anybody’s short list for possible suspects in the Climategate hacking.  At the same time, we now know things were so cozy between News Corp, Wallis, and Scotland Yard that it is hard to believe News Corp would have been thoroughly investigated for Climategate, if they were investigated at all.

How cozy?  Staff at News Corp’s News of the World tabloid apparently routinely paid off members of the Metropolitan Police Service aka Scotland Yard –  payments that were “condoned” by then-editor Andy Coulson, who later became chief spokesman for Prime Minister David Cameron.

How cozy? The Guardian dropped this bombshell Friday: “Scotland Yard’s most senior officers tried to convince the Guardian during two private meetings that its coverage of phone hacking was exaggerated and incorrect without revealing they had hired Neil Wallis….”  Scotland Yard shilling for News Corp?   I don’t think people would have believed this had they seen it in a blockbuster movie.

How cozy?  As the NYT explains in “Stain From Tabloids Rubs Off on a Cozy Scotland Yard,” the Yard hardly investigated the phone hacking scandal, ignoring mountains of evidence for years.

And then we have the social coziness:

Read more

Even as toxic algae outbreak plagues Florida's Caloosahatchee River, one of its representatives, John Mica (R-FL), sponsored a bill to limit the EPA's power to control water pollution.

HR 2018 is a bipartisan bill that would rein in the Obama EPA and end the agency’s destructive abuse of authority and restore the balance needed to get America working again.

But the West Virginia Coal Association did much more than offer written support for the act; the organization is one of 44 such groups who donated a combined $28.9 million to House lawmakers in a push to secure the bill’s passing and thus limit the EPA’s role in the making, promulgation, and enforcement of clean-water regulations.

Lobbyist money played a pivotal part in what Earth Justice calls the fight of “clean water versus dirty water.” Interest groups working in support of the bill spent 23 times more money than did the opposition. In some instances, lawmakers received as much as $100,000 from lobbyists in support of the measure and not a cent from those opposed.

House Majority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) alone took in over $325,000, and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) made close to $550,000.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL), who sponsored the bill, received $102,000 from those in favor of his legislation. Mica characterized the act as a defense against the EPA’s bullying. “Everyone has called this a huge power grab by EPA and EPA has indeed created a regulatory nightmare that affects almost every state in the union,” Mica said.

But what specifically attracts water polluters and their money to this piece of legislation? It essentially takes the EPA’s long-held power to regulate water pollution and gives that authority back to individual states where corporate interests and ill-informed lawmakers can control the show. The EPA explains what the act proposes in its press release:

H.R. 2018 would roll back the key provisions of the Act that have been the underpinning of 40 years of progress in making the nation’s waters fishable and drinkable.

H.R. 2018 could limit efforts to safeguard communities by removing the federal government’s authority to take action when state water quality standards are not protective of public health. In addition, it would restrict EPA’s authority to take action when it finds that a state’s Act permit or permit program is inadequate and would shorten EPA’s review and collaboration with the Army Corps of Engineers on permits for dredged or fill material.

All of these changes could result in adverse impacts to human health, the economy and the environment through increased pollution and degradation of water bodies that serve as venues for recreation and tourism, and that provide drinking water sources and habitat for fish and wildlife.

H.R. 2018 would disrupt the carefully constructed complementary Act roles for EPA, the Army Corps and states in protecting water quality. It also could eliminate EPA’s ability to protect water quality and public health in downstream states and could increase the number of lawsuits challenging state permits.

Fortunately, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act must clear both a Democrat-controlled Senate and the threat of a presidential veto before it can become the law of the land. But what is clear from the July 13 vote is that House members are selling something that shouldn’t be sold for any price–our right to clean water.

Appalachian Voices is fighting the War on Water.

–Sarah Bufkin

The AP dropped more bad news on a state already reeling from Exxon’s Yellowstone spill:

A newly discovered oil spill in northwestern Montana went unreported for a month before a neighboring landowner complained to the Blackfeet Indian Tribe, federal regulators said Monday.FX Drilling Co. never reported the spill, estimated to be between 420 and 840 gallons, to the tribe or to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA spokesman Joe Vranka said.

A fossil fuel company lying to the public about a spill — who could believe it?

This should be another the nail in the coffin for TransCanada’s proposed tar sands pipeline into the U.S. — see As America’s “Last Best River” Suffers Through Exxon Spill, Experts Warn of Risks from Keystone XL Pipeline.

The narrator of A River Runs Through It says:

Like many fly fishermen in western Montana where the summer days are almost Arctic in length, I often do not start fishing until the cool of the evening. Then in the Arctic half-light of the canyon, all existence fades to a being with my soul and memories and the sounds of the Big Blackfoot River and a four-count rhythm and the hope that a fish will rise. Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world’s great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of those rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters.

Now we are all haunted by oil.

Below are earlier comments from the Facebook commenting system:

Zimzones@hotmail.com

BP just declared the Gulf of Mexico ‘clean & fixed’.
If you buy that, I’ve got a pristine river in Montana to sell you. Oh, wait!

July 19 at 3:15pm

Josh Mechals

And BP has a new little leak in the Alaskan Tundra. Awsome. More tax credits for big Oil need people. Dig deep.

July 19 at 11:24am

Todd Tanner

Looks like some of the oil ran downstream into the Marias River. After what happened with the Yellowstone, Montana’s anglers aren’t going to be real happy.

July 19 at 1:06pm

Yes, they call it something slightly different — and it has a very different goal than the original cap-and-trade:

The Cut, Cap and Balance bill, which President Barack Obama threatened to veto on Monday, would slash funding for government programs, implement spending caps that opponents and supporters have called “draconian” and condition a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling on congressional approval of a constitutional amendment requiring the federal government to balance its budget. The bill, introduced last Friday, didn’t go through a single legislative committee — a tactic Republicans vowed to avoid.

And that’s how the centrist Politico spins it.

In reality, the bill would permanently destroy the competitiveness of the country — forever gutting efforts to invest in clean energy, reducing oil dependence, R&D of any kind, infrastructure, education, and the like, just as we are struggling to come out of a deep recession.  The bill would make it incredibly difficult to respond to major crises or disasters in the future, like, say, Dust-Bowlification, increasingly devastating extreme weather events, sea level rise, the poisoning of our oceans, and the like.

Let’s call it cap-and-trade-away-the-country’s-future.

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

Midwest Economy Would Get Boost From Clean Energy Investment, Study Finds

Midwest residents would pay less for electricity, have more job opportunities, and breathe healthier air if their state adopted stronger clean energy standards, according to a peer-reviewed report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

The report, “A Bright Future for the Heartland: Powering the Midwest Economy with Clean Energy,” shows that Midwest states have tremendous potential to produce electricity from renewable resources, particularly wind, biomass (plant material such as corn stalks and switch grass), and solar and to cut utility bills by reducing energy use in homes and businesses.

Read more

I’m mashing two Media Matters pieces, the headline article and “Fox Vilifies Efficient Light Bulbs,” the source of the video above.  Note that a full half of the misleading conservative media pieces are owned by Rupert Murdoch’s corrupt News Corp.

–Media Matters

In at least 40 instances since the beginning of 2011, conservative media outlets wrongly told consumers that the light bulb efficiency standards scheduled to take effect in 2012 will require them to use compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs).

Industry Denounces Inaccurate Media Coverage

Joseph Higbee, a spokesman for the electrical manufacturers association, offered his take on the situation: “Unfortunately people do not yet understand this lighting transition, and mistakenly think they won’t be able to buy incandescent light bulbs. This misinformation has been promoted by a number of media outlets. Incandescent light bulbs are not being banned, and the new federal energy-efficiency standards for light bulbs do not mandate the use of CFLs. My hope is that the media can help the American people understand the energy-efficient lighting options available, as opposed to furthering misconceptions.” [New York Times, 5/25/11]

Read more