The heat wave now battering much of the nation is centered on Oklahoma, where record heat and drought have crippled the state for the entire summer. With August on the way, there is no end in sight. The prolonged heat — Oklahoma City has been above 100°F for 30 days this summer — has probably killed over a dozen Oklahoma residents:

The sustained heat has taxed local water systems and claimed at least five lives, with another eight deaths possibly being caused by the heat, authorities said.

The oil-rich state is also the epicenter of global warming denial, led by its senior U.S. Senator, Jim Inhofe (R-OK). The oil-funded senator has a long history of finding humor in the misery caused by extreme weather disturbed by greenhouse pollution, including the record snowstorms of this winter. This deadly heat wave is no exception. In a tweet on Thursday, Inhofe’s press office mocked the killer heat, arguing that Al Gore could cool it off:

The tweet links to the Wikipedia page on “The Gore Effect,” which is the climate-denier claim that weather and appearances by Al Gore are linked. The claim, of course, lacks any sense whatsoever, but that’s never been a burden for Inhofe.

The BBC is to revamp its science coverage after an independent review highlighted weaknesses and concluded that journalists boosted the apparent controversy of scientific news stories such as climate change, GM crops and the MMR vaccine by giving too much weight to fringe scientific viewpoints….

Commissioned last year to assess impartiality and accuracy in BBC science coverage across television, radio and the internet, the review said the network was at times so determined to be impartial that it put fringe views on a par with well-established fact: a strategy that made some scientific debates appear more controversial than they were.

The criticism was particularly relevant to stories on issues such as global warming, GM and the MMR vaccine, where minority views were sometimes given equal weighting to broad scientific consensus, creating what the report describes as “false balance”.

Let’s file this Guardian story under,”Duh”!

The BBC’s coverage of climate change has deteriorated noticeably (see “Exclusive: Former correspondent and editor explains the drop in quality of BBC’s climate coverage” and links below).

Still, it is remarkable that one of the most highly regarded news organizations in the world would conduct this review in the first place.  In this country, the media coverage has also dropped in quantity and quality (see Silence of the Lambs: Media herd’s coverage of climate change “fell off the map” in 2010).  But there’s very little introspection here — and what there is often ends up as circular benchmarking (“we’re as good as everyone else”) or self congratulation (“we ran a couple of global warming stories”).

Every major media outlet in this country should do what the BBC did:

The review comprised an independent report by Professor Steve Jones, emeritus professor of genetics at University College London, and an in-depth analysis by researchers at Imperial College London of science coverage across the BBC in May, June and July of 2009 and 2010.

Jones likened the BBC’s approach to oppositional debates to asking a mathematician and maverick biologist what two plus two equals. When the mathematician says four and the maverick says five, the public are left to conclude the answer is somewhere in between.

Snap!

The extensive BBC review and content analysis, BBC Trust – Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science, can be found here.  It is particularly impressive that Jones lays out

… the mind‐set, and the tactics, of some (but not all) proponents of the idea that global warming is a myth into context.

They, with many others, practise denialism: the use of rhetoric to give the appearance of debate. This is not the same as scepticism, for a sceptic is willing to change his or her mind when provided with evidence. A denialist is not.

Precisely.  It is time for the media to stop pretending that the fringe deniers they keep citing are in any way part of the scientific process.  These deniers are pure rejectionists who have mastered rhetoric to twist the debate, but they have never been open to the actual evidence.

Here are the key parts of the BBC report on “false impartiality” and “false balance”:

Read more

— Valeri Vasquez

Big oil and coal companies, and some utilities are offering Americans a “false choice” between jobs, economic stability, and public health as the debate over EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics rule heats up. But a number of utilities across the country want the nation to know the truth:  The time for mercury reduction is now.

In a July 11^th letter to Congressional leaders, 36 energy companies noted that delaying the air toxics rule will generate uncertainty among investors, as well as companies already preparing for compliance.  This uncertainty will slow investments and economic recovery.

The landmark standard will decrease mercury and acid gas emissions from coal-fired utilities by 91 percent, and slash sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution by 55 percent.  It is slated to go final on November 16^th. The rule is projected to save 17,000 lives and prevent 11,000 heart attacks and 120,000 asthma attacks annually—all while providing $140 billion in health benefits every year. A University of Massachusetts study found that together with the Clean Air Transport rule, the air toxics rule will create 1.4 million jobs over the next five years. So far, more than 639,000 Americans have expressed their support for the rule during the public comment period due to end August 4^th.

Even so, some of the nation’s worst polluters are trying to delay these health protections. Utilities like Southern Company and DTE claim that it will be too difficult to install mercury reduction equipment by a 2015 compliance date, even though the law was passed 20 years ago, and the first standards were proposed seven years ago. These recalcitrant companies threaten job cuts, power reliability, and economic impacts if the three year timeline is not extended. Meanwhile, the coal-fired power plants responsible for 40 percent of mercury pollution in the United States continue to spew an additional 772 million pounds of toxic chemicals into playgrounds, backyards, and lungs every year.

A CAP analysis revealed that coal fired power plants without pollution controls are more than 50 years old, on average.  Yet some utilities are still unwilling to modernize them. These outmoded entities are countered by the chorus of power companies who understand that the new mercury standards are not only achievable, they’re also good for business.

Read more

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

Climate bill dead, so key players move on

One year ago Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ended the climate bill’s misery.

“It’s not a happy anniversary,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who has co-sponsored nearly all the major global warming bills debated over the past decade.

Read more

Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney is now claiming carbon is not a pollutant.

Romney’s recent position not only contradicts that of the Obama administration, but that of his own administration when he served as governor.

While in office, Romney pushed state regulations aimed at enforcing emissions standards on power plants for four “pollutants,” including carbon dioxide. Here is an excerpt from the regulation, 310 CMR 7.29, as it stood in May of 2004, over a year after Romney took office:

The purpose of 310 CMR 7.29 is to control emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO₂), mercury (Hg), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO₂) and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) (together “pollutants“) from affected facilities in Massachusetts. 310 CMR 7.29 accomplishes this by establishing output-based emission rates for NOx, SO₂ and CO₂ and establishing a cap on CO₂ and Hg emissions from affected facilities.

After the Department of Environment instigated the broader regulation 310 CMR 7.29 to clean up the state’s “Filthy Five” power plants in 2001, the Romney administration took the initiative on developing the emission limits and implementation schedule for carbon dioxide. Romney’s advisers included Harvard University professor John Holdren, now Obama’s top science adviser.

At a 2003 press conference at Pacific Gas and Electric’s power plant in Salem, Massachusetts, Romney publicly promised that he would “enforce without compromise” the emissions regulations. While announcing his decision to deny PGE’s request for more time to comply with the new standards, he attacked the power company for dragging its heels with regards to 310 CMR 7.29: “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people. And that plant kills people.”

In his 2004 Climate Protection Plan, Romney promoted his anti-pollution scheme:

With their strong advocacy and support, Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to finalize four-pollutant (“4P”) regulations in 2001, requiring reductions in nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide for our older power plants.

In 2005, Romney proudly announced “strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants” using a cap-and-trade plan:

Massachusetts continues to be committed to improving air quality for all our citizens. These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment. They help us accomplish our environmental goals while protecting jobs and the economy.”

After environmentalists criticized Romney for his stance on a wind farm project, former press secretary Julie Teer defended her boss’ environmental record in a 2005 email by citing “his aggressive enforcement of the Filthy Five regulations.”

Romney is now painting himself as a anti-regulation skeptic, but his record on carbon pollution is practically indistinguishable from Obama administration policy.

–Sarah Bufkin

Many factors contribute to rising prices of food: Demand from rapidly-growing developing countries; droughts; energy prices; the value of the dollar; and, as a new report from Purdue University concludes, ethanol production.

While the Purdue researchers are careful to explain the phenomenon is caused by a combination of all these factors, the report targets two main culprits:  Chinese demand for soybeans and American ethanol. In 2010 and into this year, 27% of the U.S. corn crop went toward ethanol — up from 10% in 2005 and 2006.

[T]he demand surges from biofuels and Chinese soybean purchases appear to be persistent. While the demand shifts to date are expected to persist, the rate of increase in demand growth is expected to slow as corn biofuels mandates are reached and as China has built adequate soybeans stocks levels. This slowing of the demand surges may give world supply a better opportunity to catch up in coming years. Other events—such as additional demand growth, the degree of supply response, and macroeconomic variables—will all be important in determining how this cycle plays out.

[T]aking up around 27% of the corn crop (net of the by-product credit), there is little doubt that biofuels play a role in the corn price level and variability, and this has spilled over into other commodity markets. The RFS2 has been important in establishing ethanol production capacity and the minimum biofuels demand for corn realized today.

The researchers found, “Market inelasticity—a reduction in the responsiveness of prices to demand and supply forces—is one of the key mechanisms in today’s commodity markets.” They offer this remarkable chart of the  soaring amount of US crop acreage required to produce ethanol and soybeans for China:

Read more

by Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity

When faced with regulation, industry will generally choose the cheapest way to comply.  As long as they achieve stringent pollution goals, this is a good thing:  Economically efficient rules get less resistance and blowback than those that create unnecessarily heavy burdens on business.

So it makes sense for EPA to choose more flexibility whenever legally possible.  But in upcoming proposals to control greenhouse gases, some signs point to a political calculation that may steer the agency away from this tactic.

Using authority under the Clean Air Act, EPA is expected to propose greenhouse gas standards for power plants and refineries. Under the rules, new and existing sources will likely be required to achieve some kind of emissions reductions, but how, and how much, is still very much up in the air.

Legally, the government has wide legal latitude to use a range of flexibility mechanisms to keep costs down, and thereby set stronger standards.  Certain sections of the Clean Air Act state with considerable certainty that the agency may consider a range of options in setting standards, including economic incentives and market mechanisms.

In a recent study, several think tanks (including Policy Integrity) found a number of options to make the anticipated rule more flexible.  Programs like tradable performance standards or emissions budgets could most likely be used to regulate existing sources.  EPA and the states should also be able to allow trading between different regulated source types and utilize flexible tools like allowance banking and price floors.

EPA should take advantage of this considerable leeway to allow industry to reduce their pollution as cheaply as possible. Decades’ worth of research has shown that environmental regulations that allow for flexible compliance are most effective at keeping costs down and promoting innovation. And when costs come down, stronger environmental targets can be achieved.

Despite the no-brainer status of this decision, partisan politics seems to have gotten in the way.

Read more