From a New York Times piece on the closure of coal-fired power plants:

No one is sure yet how many or which ones will be shuttered or what the total lost output would be. And there is little agreement over how peak demand will be met in future summers.

Here’s a bright idea:

As heat waves get more intense and cause immense spikes in electricity demand around the country, it doesn’t take a genius to ask if the problem — the sun — might actually be the solution.

But yet again, two major publications – the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal – have written big stories on peak electricity demand with no mention of solar photovoltaics (PV).

Why, despite the proven, cost-competitive benefits of using solar PV to match spiking electricity use, is hardly anyone in the press bothering to talk about the technology?

Yesterday’s NYT piece was particularly egregious. In writing about how utilities are going to make up for lost generation due to EPA air-quality regulations, the reporter seems to deliberately ignore the technology, and instead use the opportunity to rail on wind:

Read more

In a new television advertisement, oil giant Exxon Mobil promotes Canadian tar sands for “energy security and economic growth,” with the potential to create “hundreds of thousands of jobs.” The narrator, Exxon marketing manager Artis Brown, claims Exxon’s Kearl tar sands project will produce crude “with the same emissions as many other oils”:

America is facing some tough challenges right now. Two of the most important are energy security and economic growth. North America actually has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. A large part of that is oil sands. This resource has the ability to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. At our Kearl oil sands project in Canada, we’ll be able to produce these oil sands with the same emissions as many other oils, and that’s a huge breakthrough. That’s good for our country’s energy security and our economy.

Watch it:

The 30-second ad manages to say almost nothing that isn’t misleading:

“Two Of The Most Important Challenges”: Exxon deliberately ignores mention of the third related challenge that tar sands development affects: global warming. The Kearl tar sands mine contains over 5.5 billion barrels worth of bitumen — the tarry substance that gets processed into synthetic crude through an energy-intensive and ecologically destructive process. Even if the processing of the bitumen didn’t produce huge amounts of greenhouse pollution (see below), using oil from the Kearl project would emit about 2 billion tons of greenhouse pollution. There will be no “energy security and economic growth” in a world ravaged by rapid climate change.

“Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jobs”: The industry study that claims there will be massive job creation from tar sands development — mostly in Canada — admits that 82 percent of the jobs “created” aren’t actually in tar sands production. The oil and gas industry is one of the worst sectors for investment in job creation — green sectors create four times as many jobs with the same investment.

“Same Emissions As Many Other Oils”: Kearl is expected to produce 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, equivalent to 800,000 passenger vehicles. ExxonMobil is optimistic that experimental technology will reduce greenhouse pollution from oil derived from the Kearl tar sands by about 6 percent (a 25 percent reduction of production-related emissions, which are about 25 percent of total emissions, including combustion). Even with advanced technology, the tar-sands oil production will always be more polluting than conventional oil production.

Each year, the cost to civilization of each added ton of carbon dioxide increases. Exploiting the Canadian tar sands to fuel ExxonMobil’s profits would be suicidal. If Exxon has its way, climate scientist James Hansen warns, “it is essentially game over.” This is why thousands of people are heading to the White House to stage a mass protest to convince President Obama not to approve the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Perry on why he split with Al Gore over climate (12/09): “I certainly got religion. I think he’s gone to hell.”

Rick Perry, Obama’s dream opponent, is a climate hawk’s nightmare.

First the dream. It is a mark of how weak the Republican field is that Perry, a candidate who is so ill-suited for beating Barack Obama, is viewed as a savior for the party.

The key point about the 2012 election are that Obama is eminently beatable because he is dreadful at messaging, has a poor economy, and is in an unpopular war with meaningful casualties. The latter two factors are key in the “Bread and Peace” model by political scientist Douglas Hibbs (via Salon)

I’m not saying this simplistic model is determinative, only that anyone who thinks Obama is a lock for reelection isn’t paying attention.

What Obama most needs is opponent who gives him an obvious storyline even his team of dreadful communicators can’t screw up. Romney the job-killing flip-flopper certainly does.

But what Obama most wants to do is run as the future versus the past (since the present ain’t hot for him) and to tie his opponent to the increasingly unpopular Tea Party extremists whom independents correctly blame for the debt ceiling debacle.

Perry is, ironically, the worst of both possible worlds for the GOP. He is easily cast as “George W. Bush The Sequel” because that is what he is: A Rigid, Anti-Science, Ideologue Governor From The Great State of Big Oil. And indeed he is a Tea Party darling for his extremist, wacky statements, such as his talk of Texas secession (for more, see TP’s Top 10 Things Texas Gov. Rick Perry Doesn’t Want You To Know About Him).

Remember, to win (lose?) in 2000, Bush himself ran originally as a faux caring, moderate “compassionate” conservative, who advocated in public spending on education and regulating greenhouse gases. Sure he was religious, but he had a classic story to tell, the reformed or saved wastrel. But Perry has no such story, he is just the hardcore zealot Bush turned into — on steroids (see, for instance, Prayer as an adaptation strategy: Texas plans to cut budget of agency battling record wildfires). Indeed even moderate Republicans like Joe Scarborough mock him (see TP’s Scarborough Mocks Perry: Jesus Said To ‘Let People Take Images Of You Praying So They’ll Think You’re A Holy Man).

If Obama wants to run a story line that his opponent represents the past, the policies that put us in this “mess from Texas,” Perry is from central casting.

Don’t get me wrong. Obama could lose to Perry, much as he could lose to Romney — but I don’t think they will unless the economy gets worse.

For climate hawks, Perry is a nightmare.

Read more

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) believes that prayer is a better policy response to heat waves and drought than managing greenhouse pollution. In a USA Today op-ed, Thornberry reflected upon the “devastating” and “historic” Texas drought — “the most severe one-year drought on record.” “My family has been ranching in northern Texas for more than 120 years, and we have never seen or felt anything like it,” He then worried that this clear sign of a changing climate might lead people to support policies based on “flawed” climate science:

Any decisions we make should be based on sound science rather than political, social or personal profit agendas. No computer model yet has correctly predicted the Earth’s actual temperatures. We simply do not understand enough about the causes and effects related to our weather. Yet, some in Washington continue to push for new regulations and added taxes based upon those flawed models. Their policies would cost us jobs as the economy continues to struggle.

“There will always be those who want to exploit hardship to push their agenda, but my part of the country cannot afford the taxes and regulations they want to impose on us,” Thornberry concluded. He then joined Govs. Rick Perry (R-TX) and Mary Fallin (R-OK) in arguing that the best response to the climate disasters is to pray for help instead. “A prayer for rain, however, would be appreciated.”

Thornberry is staking out new ground in climate denial — admitting that the climate is changing, for the worse, with terrible consequences, but then claiming that the science that explains why that’s happening is wrong. As early as 1975, climate scientists using rudimentary models accurately projected the rise in global temperatures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change computer models have also accurately projected temperatures, although they slightly underestimated the rise in carbon dioxide emissions and thus the actual temperatures.

“If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur,” the American Physical Society concluded in 2007. “We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

If we don’t take the science seriously, then the nation won’t have a prayer.

A partnership between energy developer, EcoElectrica, and the Puerto Rican government seeks to build a massive 93-mile natural gas pipeline that will cut directly through the interior of the U.S. island territory.  The governor’s office and the Puerto Rican Power Authority (PREPA) are touting the economic benefits that this massive project will bring to the poverty-stricken island.  While these supposed benefits vary depending on who you are asking — and what side of the argument they are on — one fact remains strikingly clear: an overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans on both the island and the mainland oppose this project and are calling for cleaner energy alternatives.  Jorge Madrid and Brennan Alvarez of the Center for American Progress have the story.

Officially named Via Verde (Green Way) by the government, the proposed pipeline has been dubbed Via de la Muerte (Death Route) by its opponents, prompting protests and petitions to stop it.  A recent poll conducted by El Nuevo Dia (one of Puerto Rico’s largest news outlets) indicates that 70 percent of citizens oppose the construction of the pipeline, 61 percent are “very worried” about the safety of this project and its impacts, and 56 percent of people are not convinced that the pipeline will achieve its primary goal of reducing the cost of electricity, compared to 27 percent who believe that it will.

Earlier this year, 30,000 Puerto Ricans took to the streets in protest, including a broad coalition of labor groups and community organizations.  The opposition has spread across the Atlantic to Puerto Rican activist groups in New York, and highly popular Puerto Rican Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) has elevated this issue, calling on the Army Corps of Engineers to halt this “extremely unpopular” project.

Despite the large public outcry, Puerto Rican governor Luis Fortuño continues to make a case for the project.  “With Vía Verde we will enter a new energy era that strengthens the competitiveness of our economy and improves the quality of life of our people,” Fortuño said, calling the high price of energy the main obstacle to the island’s economic and social development.

Just last month Daniel Pagán, an engineer from PREPA, claimed that Via Verde would cut electricity cost by 30 percent, reduce emissions by 60 percent, and generate 4,500 new jobs.  The project is also expected to decrease the island’s oil dependence to 12 percent of power generation by 2012, while boosting natural gas usage to 71 percent from its current 15 percent, according to PREPA projections.  Currently, the island produces about 70 percent of its power from imported oil, with the rest split evenly between natural gas and coal.

These claims by PREPA have been refuted by researchers from the University of Puerto Rico, however.  Most notably, data released from a 2011 study that concludes the best case scenario for Vía Verde will provide savings of only one cent per kilowatt-hour. (In its own estimation, PREPA suggests that the savings are in the order of 12 cents per kilowatt-hour).

Still, for an island with an unemployment rate of nearly 15 percent, where 48 percent of residents live in poverty, and the average family makes only $17,184 while paying double the U.S. rate for energy, the promise of new jobs and a reduction in energy costs is a welcome.

But the story is much more complex. Read more

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

Smaller Crops Forecast by U.S. After Planting Delays, Heat Wave

Corn, soybean and spring-wheat harvests in the U.S., the world’s largest exporter, will be smaller than the government forecast last month after a damaging heat wave that may signal higher costs for food and biofuel.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture cut its corn-crop estimate by 4.1 percent, reduced the soybean forecast by 5.2 percent, and said spring-wheat production will be 5.2 percent below what it predicted in July. The harvests for all three crops would be less than expected by analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.

Parts of the Midwest, the main growing region, were the hottest since 1955 last month. Smaller supplies of corn may increase costs for ethanol refiners such as Poet LLC, Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Valero Energy Corp. and meat producers Tyson Foods Inc. and Smithfield Foods Inc., which buy the grain for feed. The price of corn, the biggest U.S. crop, jumped 68 percent in the past year before today.

White House faces Senate, industry pressure on smog rule

Read more

— by Shauna Theel, in a Media Matters cross-post

We noted in June that Fox News’ iPad app was sponsored exclusively by ExxonMobil, a corporation known for paying think tanks to obfuscate the scientific consensus on climate change. Now FoxNews.com’s “Planet Earth” section is also brought to you by the oil giant:

In fact, FoxNews.com’s entire Science & Technology section and their opinion page appear to be sponsored by ExxonMobil; the other sections of their website are not.

Earlier this year, FoxNews.com sought to debunk the fact that Earth has warmed over the past 30 years, as well as the notion that human activity has contributed to the warming with a “Planet Earth” article,  portions of which “are utter nonsense” and “do not make sense” according to climatologists consulted by Media Matters.

Two recent stories that Fox News’ Planet Earth section ran on climate change were based around claims pushed by the Heartland Institute’s James Taylor and quoted Taylor’s views. A post by Taylor, which baselessly claimed a research group “doctors sea level data” to exaggerate climate change, inspired a FoxNews.com article asking, “Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued — or are climate scientists doctoring the data?”

And after a Forbes column by Taylor misinterpreted a climate study and declared that it blows a “gaping hole in global warming alarmism,” Fox News’ Planet Earth asked “Has a central tenant [sic] of global warming just collapsed?” The article falsely claimed the study showed the “planet isn’t heating up” and featured this image and caption: Read more

Wallace Broecker’s 1975 temperature prediction, adjusted to reflect measured CO2 changes, vs. GISTemp observed global surface temperature changes.

– dana1981, in a Skeptical Science cross-post

Wallace Broecker was among the first climate scientists to use simple climate models to predict future global temperature changes.  His 1975 paper Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? is widely credited with coining the term “global warming”.

In that paper, Broecker modeled the effects of the expected future increase of CO2 due to humans burning fossil fuels, combined with a natural climate cycle which he estimated based on Greeland ice core records, and tweaked to match the observed temperature record at the time — see figure below:

Read more