Hurricane Irene is bearing down on the Outer Banks of North Carolina as a Category Two storm, and is expected to track a path of destruction up the densely populated Atlantic coast, with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg ordering the first-ever mandatory evacuation of low-lying areas of the city. As the U.S. government report “Global Climate Change Impacts in the US” summarized in 2009, warming of the oceans is causing Atlantic hurricanes to become more intense and dangerous:

The destructive potential of Atlantic hurricanes has increased since 1970, correlated with an increase in sea surface temperature. An increase in average summer wave heights along the U.S. Atlantic coastline since 1975 has been attributed to a progressive increase in hurricane power. The intensity of Atlantic hurricanes is likely to increase during this century with higher peak wind speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge height and strength. Even with no increase in hurricane intensity, coastal inundation and shoreline retreat would increase as sea-level rise accelerates, which is one of the most certain and most costly consequences of a warming climate.

Below, ThinkProgress Green explores in more detail how Hurricane Irene has been made more destructive by the combustion of hundreds of billions of tons of fossil fuels.

Oceanic Warming. Greenhouse pollution is causing the world’s oceans to warm. Sea surface temperatures in the region where Hurricane Irene formed and along its track are around 0.5°C warmer than they were about 30 years ago. “This rise is simulated pretty well by climate models forced by anthropogenic changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols, implicating these as the probable cause,” Dr. Doug Smith, the climate scientist who leads the Met Office Decadal Climate Prediction System tells ThinkProgress. This increased heat adds about 10 to 20 miles to the top potential speed of the hurricane’s winds. Storm surge increases proportionally to the square of the wind speed, meaning a 10 percent increase in hurricane wind speed means a 20 percent increase in storm surge. Climate scientists are debating how global warming and natural variability are interacting to change the intensity of Atlantic storms overall.

Sea Level Rise. Greenhouse pollution is causing the world’s oceans to rise, both because of warming of the ocean water and because of the melting of Greenland and Antarctica. Sea levels have been rapidly rising along the East Coast of the United States. Because of a combination of the global sea level rise and because of subsidence, Boston’s relative sea level has increased 11.8 inches since 1990, and sea level at Norfolk, VA has steadily risen 14.5 inches over the past 80 years. The one-foot rise in sea level means that damage from Hurricane Irene’s storm surge will be about 50 percent greater than it would have been otherwise.

More Atmospheric Vapor. Because the world’s oceans have warmed, the amount of atmospheric water vapor has increased by about 4 percent. Rainfall rates due to hurricanes appeart to have increased by 6 to 8 percent since about 1970 in association with increased water vapor in the atmosphere and warming. “This is because of the dominant reliance of storms on the resident moisture in the atmosphere and the moisture convergence for precipitation and latent heating in storms,” Dr. Kevin Trenberth wrote in 2007. “These warm ocean temperatures will also make Irene a much wetter hurricane than is typical, since much more water vapor can evaporate into the air from record-warm ocean surfaces,” tropical meteorologist Jeff Masters explains at Wunderground.com. “The latest precipitation forecast from NOAA’s Hydrological prediction center shows that Irene could dump over eight inches of rain over coastal New England.”

Increased Extreme Precipitation. Because of greenhouse pollution, heavy rains in the United States have increased 14 percent over the 20th century, much greater than the increase in overall precipitation. This has been one of the wettest years in history for the Northeast, directly in the path of Hurricane Irene. Hurricane Irene’s wind and rain will more easily topple trees in the loose, saturated soil and flood rivers, reservoirs, and drains.

Millions of people and billions of dollars of property are at risk from this one storm, in this year of billion-dollar climate disasters. Global warming pollution is far from the only reason that Hurricane Irene shouldn’t be thought of as a “natural” disaster. Much of the devastating potential of Hurricane Irene will be a consequence of past decisions about land use, construction and coastal preservation, mitigated by the brave work of public servants under attack by Tea Party conservatives. Even as we have polluted the climate to increase the threat from Atlantic storms, we have overbuilt the increasingly vulnerable coasts. Although Irene is being described as a “once in a lifetime” threat, the weight of the evidence indicates that this storm is merely a harbinger of our dangerous future.

The State Department issued its final environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline today, finding that it would bring “no significant impacts” on the environment – even while substantially increasing greenhouse gas emissions and crossing major aquifers and wetlands across the country.

The Environmental Protection Agency criticized the last two environmental reviews from the Department of State, saying they lacked adequate study on almost every major environmental issue associated with building the pipeline. But the DOS worked closely with the EPA on this report.

The 1,700 mile Keystone XL pipeline would bring over 800,000 barrels of tar sands crude from Alberta to the Gulf Coast each day. The EPA estimates that carbon emissions from tar sands are 80% higher than the average crude refined in the U.S. The process of extracting tar sands oil requires strip mining, causing extensive damage to the boreal forest, creating “dead” water ponds filled with toxic chemicals, and requires four times more water to produce a barrel of tar sands oil than for conventional oil.

It seems the DOS has pulled the same maneuver as the Interior Department — admitting that greenhouse gases are a major issue, but still declaring the project environmentally sound. (Last month, Interior green-lighted Shell’s offshore drilling in the Arctic while ironically outlining the swift impacts of climate change on the region.)

From the DOS review:

[C]urrent projections suggest that the amount of energy required to extract all crude oils is projected to increase over time due to the need to extract oil from ever deeper reservoirs using more energy intensive techniques.

In spite of the increasing difficulty in extracting oil from the tar sands, the DOS estimates that greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands could stay flat in the coming years. However, a recent analysis from the Canadian government shows that emissions will likely double by 2020, cancelling out the country’s renewable energy programs.

The report does not determine a State Department decision; it is simply a final environmental review. After a 90-day public comment period, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will issue a decision.

Secretary Clinton said she would leave “no stone unturned” in the analysis of the pipeline. But last month, the objectivity of the agency was called into question when a diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks showed a DOS official had been coaching the Canadian government on how to better “sell” the tar sands to the public:

Read more

by Michael Ettlinger, Donna Cooper, Sarah Rosen Wartell, Bracken Hendricks

When President Barack Obama announces his jobs plan in September, it should be a plan that matches the scale of the problem. With millions unemployed and job creation sluggish, this is not the time to be timid.

In particular, the president needs to offer much more than proposals that conservatives in Congress might support—tax cuts that wouldn’t be nearly as effective as the alternatives. The president’s proposals also will have to go well beyond simply extending provisions such as payroll tax cuts that are set to expire. With millions of unemployed Americans, the plan needs to be one that will improve the economy, not just tread water. And the plan needs to create jobs fast, not just lay the groundwork for jobs in the future.

In short, the plan should be a sharp contrast to the economically nonsensical agenda his political opposition is passionately arguing for. The idea that simply slashing government programs and taxes is the key to economic success is a tried and failed strategy. The tax system we have now is a tax system inherited from President George W. Bush. We’ve seen the results. Economists across the political spectrum agree that spending cuts in a weak economy run counter to everything we know about getting a country out of an economic hole. President Obama should not meet halfway those who only offer economic incoherence. He should take them head on.

The president’s plan should be designed to boost private-sector job creation. All of us, from everyday Americans and small business owners to the chief executives of corporations and investors on Wall Street, want private-sector job growth. We all know it’s the key to a sound and sustained recovery. And there is plenty of money in the private sector to create millions of jobs. Corporate America is experiencing record profits in the trillions of dollars. The problem is that not enough of that money is going back into our economy in the form of new hires or new investment. So if we all agree that’s what we need and there’s the money to do it, why isn’t it happening? What is the missing catalyst that will spur businesses to start hiring?

Read more

On Fox News yesterday, anchor Megyn Kelly started a segment on EPA air quality regulations with an outright lie:

“Coal industry groups sounding the alarm today that a fifth of America’s electricity generating capacity is about to be taken offline thanks to new federal regulations. They say that this will lead to wide spread power outages, rolling blackouts, job losses and skyrocketing energy costs.”

We know where this “fair and balanced” debate is going. Viewers don’t even need to watch the rest of the debate to know that the Environmental Protection Agency is already at your neighborhood coal plant pulling the plug.

Firstly, 20 percent of capacity is not going to get shut down. The Bi-Partisan Policy Center, FERC, and the Congressional Research Service all say the industry estimates are vastly overstated. In fact, a major group of progressive utilities already investing in renewables and more natural gas — the clean energy group — say that over 60% of coal plants that have submitted data on their emissions already meet the standards.

In fact, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission puts this figure at about 3.5 to 7 percent.

An analysis from the Center for American Progress shows that in 17 states, around half of capacity is already equipped with pollutions controls to meet air quality standards.

And coal plants are not “about to be taken offline.” The industry has had a full decade to prepare for these rules. Yes, they’ve been in the works for 10 years now. And if they get passed, the industry will have another 3 years to prepare for them.

On top of that, we already have enough natural gas capacity in place today to meet the most aggressive scenarios for plant closures. Some of that capacity isn’t exactly where you need it — but natural gas and renewable energy facilities can be developed in a matter of months, not multiple years. As the Bipartisan Policy Center explains, “drastic consequences” touted by the coal industry are “unlikely to occur.”

These rules simply will not create the kind of chaos that opponents are claiming. But with Fox News sounding the industry’s false alarm without question, they have an easy way to spread these lies.

The U.S. Geological Survey released its estimates for natural gas reserves in the Marcellus Shale formation this week, concluding that earlier estimates were significantly inflated.

According to the USGS, there are about 84 trillion cubic feet of technically-recoverable natural gas under the Marcellus Shale, a massive sedimentary rock formation below eight East Coast states. Previous estimates from the Energy Information Administration put the figures at 410 trillion cubic feet.

In calling the USGS “the experts,” the EIA says the new figures are the most accurate. The agency has now cut its earlier estimates by 80%.

You might think the industry would be lamenting these downgraded figures. Actually, they’re celebrating them. In 2002, before new drilling methods were in place to more cost-effectively access shale gas, USGS estimates of recoverable gas were far lower than the current figures:

These gas estimates are significantly more than the last USGS assessment of the Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian Basin in 2002, which estimated a mean of about 2 trillion cubic feet of gas (TCF) and 0.01 billion barrels of natural gas liquids.

These new estimates are for technically recoverable oil and gas resources, which are those quantities of oil and gas producible using currently available technology and industry practices, regardless of economic or accessibility considerations. As such, these estimates include resources beneath both onshore and offshore areas (such as Lake Erie) and beneath areas where accessibility may be limited by policy and regulations imposed by land managers and regulatory agencies. Federal geologists published new estimates this week for the amount of natural gas that exists in a giant rock formation known as the Marcellus Shale, which stretches from New York to Virginia.

But while we appear to be narrowing in more realistic figures, the inconsistencies in shale gas reserve estimates among industry, federal agencies and state agencies is of concern. The New York Times had a piece Wednesday on the differences in analysis:

Read more

Our guest blogger is Kiley Kroh, Center for American Progress Associate Director for Ocean Communications.

The Big Oil-backed Consumer Energy Alliance’s “Open The Gulf” campaign consists of eight ads and an initial two-week run in battleground states, featuring several people describing their hardships as a result of increased fuel cost and the temporary moratorium on Gulf drilling after the BP oil disaster, and advocating opening the Gulf of Mexico to increased offshore drilling. Here’s tugboat operator Cory Kief, backed by somber strings:

The ads, complete with sad music and images of abandoned barns and empty docks, also contain several glaring inaccuracies and misleading implications:

MYTH: Opening the gulf to new drilling will lower gas prices. Though Colorado farmer Marc Amesh and truck driver David Boyer may have legitimate concerns that rising fuel costs are putting their jobs and businesses at risk, increased drilling is quite simply not the answer. Instead of providing a real solution, the CEA campaign merely parrots Big Oil lies and perpetuates the falsehood that increased drilling will lower gas prices. Even the non-partisan Energy Information Agency found that whether we dramatically expand offshore drilling or stop selling offshore leases entirely, it will have virtually no effect on gas prices – ever.

MYTH: The Obama administration is not issuing offshore drilling permits or leases. According to statistics from the Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management and Enforcement, 68 new shallow water well permits have been issued since the implementation of new safety and environmental standards on June 8, 2010. Permits have averaged more than seven per month since fall 2010, compared to an average of eight permits per month in 2009. For deepwater permits requiring subsea containment, they have approved 112 permits for 34 unique wells, with 19 permits pending, and 21 permits returned to the operator with requests for additional information, particularly information regarding containment. And perhaps the team at CEA missed last week’s announcement that the administration has scheduled a massive sale of offshore leases in the Gulf of Mexico – an auction that encompasses more than 20 million acres in the western gulf.

Before complaining about the rate of issuing new permits and leases, the industry might want to take stock of what they already have – and aren’t using. A recent study conducted by the Department of Interior found that the vast majority of offshore drilling leases remain idle.

Royal Dutch Shell, whose alarming safety record includes numerous spills and violations, was recently given the green light to drill in both the highly dangerous Arctic and a new development well in the Gulf of Mexico. The company also confirmed that “all five of the floating rigs that Shell was operating in the gulf before last year’s BP oil spill and drilling moratorium are now back to work” – a fact that doesn’t jive with CEA’s deceptive ads.

MYTH: The economic potential of offshore oil and gas is worth the risk of another blowout. Despite BP’s efforts to convince the broader public that the oil is gone and the gulf is restored, the reality is much grimmer. While the ultimate toll of the spill won’t be known for several years, there is no denying the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history had a catastrophic impact on the Gulf Coast economy and its residents. An NRDC report found that the Gulf of Mexico saw a 39 percent decline in commercial fishing catches overall between 2009 and 2010, representing a $62 million loss in dockside sales. To date, the oil giant has paid out $5 billion in economic damages to individuals and businesses in the region – with 61,558 new claims received in the past three months – and faces billions more in Clean Water Act fines and NRDA liabilities. After their top execs admitted just one year ago that they weren’t prepared to handle a major offshore spill, CEA’s Big Oil backers might want to reevaluate whether that’s a risk they’re willing to take.

Instead of asking why America’s not doing more for Big Oil, maybe Cory the tugboater, Marc the farmer, and David the truck driver should ask BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, and the others why they keep grubbing for American taxpayers’ dollars to pad their obscene profit margins.

U.S. energy sector braces for direct hit from Irene

From nuclear plants to pipelines and refineries, energy companies braced on Thursday for a potentially devastating Hurricane Irene that is barreling toward the most populated part of the United States.

The storm has prompted energy suppliers from North Carolina to Maine to secure equipment, activate emergency plans and warn customers about potential power disruptions.

“We’re battening down the hatches,” said Alan Griffith of NextEra Energy (NEE.N), which operates the Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire.

Seabrook was designed to withstand hurricane and tornado-force winds, Griffith said.

Irene was still pummeling the Bahamas late on Thursday afternoon and was expected to make landfall in North Carolina on Saturday.

While the East Coast region has no major offshore oil and gas production like the hurricane-prone Gulf Coast, the stakes are still daunting. The region has around a dozen nuclear plants, a massive oil delivery hub at New York Harbor, and its pipelines and power networks serve more than 100 million Americans.

Clinton Review of Canada Pipeline Ignores Risks, Groups Say

Read more

Dutifully following their Tea Party scripts, most of the Republican presidential candidates have declared war on the Environmental Protection Agency. They claim that the economy is being smothered by regulations designed to keep our air and water safe.No iota of evidence is being offered, and in fact the record profits of big energy companies indicate a spectacular lack of suffering.

But listen to Rep. Michele Bachmann’s promise to an Iowa crowd about one of her first presidential priorities: “I guarantee you the EPA will have doors locked and lights turned off, and they will only be about conservation. It will be a new day and a new sheriff in Washington, D.C.”

Granted, Bachmann is a witless parrot who has no chance — absolutely zero — of being elected to the White House. But her hatred of the EPA is shared by Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who is considered a GOP frontrunner.

Like Bachmann, Perry refuses to accept that global warming is real. He launched a lawsuit to stop the EPA from enacting rules to limit greenhouse gasses from oil refineries, power plants and other industrial sources.

Perry likes to whine that “EPA regulations are killing jobs all across America,” a statement that draws more cheers in his native state than in the rest of the country. In fact, polls show that a large majority of Americans are worried about air and water pollution, and hold a positive view of the EPA.

Nothing kills jobs like an environmental catastrophe, as the Gulf Coast gravely experienced during (and after) the BP oil spill last year. The true cost of that accident to the economies of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida is probably incalculable, although surely many billions of dollars were lost.

The cleanup wasn’t perfect, but it’s absurd to think that BP would have worked faster or more efficiently if the Obama administration and the EPA hadn’t been leaning on the company, both publicly and behind closed doors.

That’s best-selling author and former investigative journalist Carl Hiaasen writing in the Miami Herald.  Here’s more:

Read more