This campaign season, the airwaves will be filled with more hot air than ever before.

According to a recent New York Times story, political candidates and other organizations are expected to spend around $3 billion on television ads for the 2012 race. Already in the past six months, conservatives have spend $13 million on ads — with some of them, like a recent outright lie from the Romney campaign, getting “pants on fire” ratings from the fact-checking organization PolitiFact.

So it’s probably no surprise that Americans for Prosperity, backed by the Koch brothers, has already been spent millions of dollars on a Solyndra ad that PolitiFact labels “mostly false”:

Read more

NOTE:  I am updating this post to reflect some of the comments, further research, and input by experts.

Japan’s science ministry says 8 per cent of the country’s surface area has been contaminated by radiation from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant.

It says more than 30,000 square kilometres of the country has been blanketed by radioactive cesium.

The science ministry defines places with a concentration of more than 10,000 becquerels per square meter as “areas affected by the nuclear accident”….  The science ministry fine-tuned its methods by subtracting levels of naturally existing background radiation.

Fukushima, like most international stories, has a very short half life in the U.S. media — a lot shorter than that of radioactive cesium.  As the NY Times noted back in March, “Over the long term, the big threat to human health is cesium-137, which has a half-life of 30 years.”

So the two stories that make today’s mash up headline come from ABC — the Australian Broadcasting Company, that is.  The lead story is “Radiation covers 8pc of Japan”:

The ministry says most of the contamination was caused by four large plumes of radiation spewed out by the Fukushima nuclear plant in the first two weeks after meltdowns.

The government says some of the radioactive material fell with rain and snow, leaving the affected areas with accumulations of more than 10,000 becquerels of caesium per square metre.

As you can see from the map above (posted here), a large fraction of the affected area received 60,000 to 600,000 becquerels per square meter, which is a range that, I think, should cause concern.  If you are in that zone, it is probably prudent to take steps to determine if you live, work or send your kids to school in places at the high end of that range — and, if so, take steps to avoid prolonged outdoor exposure.

As you can see on page 24 of “Fukushima Accident: Radioactive Releases and Potential Dose Consequences,” 300,000 becquerels per square metre is 5 milliSieverts in the first year and the 10 year dose is 19 mSv — considerably higher than 1 mSv per year.  The International Atomic Energy Agency clearly states, in its “Radiation Safety” booklet:

The dose limits for practices are intended to ensure that no individual is committed to unacceptable risk due to radiation exposure. For the public the limit is 1 mSv in a year, or in special circumstances up to 5 mSv in a single year provided that the average does over five consecutive years does not exceed 1 mSv per year.

It is true that  people do not spend all of their time outdoors and the  additional cancer rates at these levels are quite small.

But based on my conversations with experts, including NRDC’s Tom Cochran, anybody who lives in that area of 60,000 to 600,000 becquerels per square metre has a legitimate cause for concern — since they don’t really have any way of knowing whether they are in the low range zone or the high range zone.  They should  certainly take steps to acquire more information about the radiation exposure for themselves and their family, and then  make decisions on their own about the risk they are willing to take.  I will do a post on this later in the week.

The NYT noted the danger of cesium:

Cesium-137 mixes easily with water and is chemically similar to potassium. It thus mimics how potassium gets metabolized in the body and can enter through many foods, including milk. After entering, cesium gets widely distributed, its concentrations said to be higher in muscle tissues and lower in bones.

Climate Progress previously reported on one of the impacts of all that radiation (see Fukushima Surprise: Radioactive Rice “Far Exceeding” Safe Levels Found in Japan).

It must be pointed out that according to the best scientific evidence, it is prudent to avoid even low levels of radiation:

A preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects, says a new report from the National Academies’ National Research Council.

Now, ABC reports, “Fukushima crisis ‘stunting children’s growth’ ” — but the cause may surprise you:

“Thousands of children living in the fallout zone are confined indoors because of radiation fears” (Photo: Reuters)

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more

JR:   Here’s yet more research on how our weather is becoming more extreme and how that could lead to higher CO2 levels than expected.

Princeton researchers found for the first time that day-to-day weather conditions have become more erratic in the past generation. Days have increasingly fluctuated between sunny and dry, and cloudy and rainy with little in-between, which can have negative consequences for ecosystems, plants, solar-energy production and other factors that depend upon consistent weather.  From 1997 to 2007, rainfall became highly erratic for much of the globe, particularly in tropical areas. Green areas indicate that the day-to-day variability increased so that those areas experienced more days at one extreme or another, either dry or a downpour with little weather variation in-between.

by Morgan Kelly, Princeton University

The first climate study to focus on variations in daily weather conditions has found that day-to-day weather has grown increasingly erratic and extreme, with significant fluctuations in sunshine and rainfall affecting more than a third of the planet.

Princeton University researchers recently reported in the Journal of Climate that extremely sunny or cloudy days are more common than in the early 1980s, and that swings from thunderstorms to dry days rose considerably since the late 1990s. These swings could have consequences for ecosystem stability and the control of pests and diseases, as well as for industries such as agriculture and solar-energy production, all of which are vulnerable to inconsistent and extreme weather, the researchers noted.

The day-to-day variations also could affect what scientists can expect to see as the Earth’s climate changes, according to the researchers and other scientists familiar with the work. Constant fluctuations in severe conditions could alter how the atmosphere distributes heat and rainfall, as well as inhibit the ability of plants to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, possibly leading to higher levels of the greenhouse gas than currently accounted for.

Read more

Like coffee and chocolate, beer is one of the common pleasures of life being damaged now by global warming. Good beer depends on water, barley, and hops — all of which are being disrupted by greenhouse pollution from burning fossil fuels. Jenn Orgolini, sustainability director for Colorado’s New Belgium Brewery, the third-largest craft brewing company in the United States, warns that climate change is hurting beer quality today:

This is not a problem that’s going to happen someday, and this is not a problem that’s just going to impact some industries. If you drink beer now, the issue of climate change is impacting you right now.

“For our brewery, growth depends on abundant clean water and quality barley and hops—and climate change puts those ingredients at risk. Our supply chain—including barley, hops and water—is especially vulnerable to weather in the short-term and to climate change in the long-term,” Orgolini told Forbes.

Heavy rains in Australia and drought in England have hurt malting barley crops this year.

Climate change has caused the quality and yield of Saaz hops — the key ingredient in Czech pilsner lager — to decline. Global warming pollution will cause further declines, scientists found in 2009. Yields of malting barley will also decline in coming years as droughts increase because of carbon pollution.

A leading international statesman has called for vulnerable nations to use the tactics of the Occupy Wall Street movement at the international climate negotiations in Durban, South Africa. José María Figueres — the former president of Costa Rica, former manager of the Davos World Economic Forum, and brother of Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — told reporters there should be an “Occupy Durban” action by the nations most affected by climate change at the Conference of the Parties (COP):

The riots of London, and the indignados of Madrid, and the now growing global Occupy Wall Street movement is a sign of the frustration felt by many given that we are not addressing their economic needs. So with respect to climate maybe we need an Occupy Durban. A sit-in by the delegations of those countries that are most affected, that are going from one COP to the next COP to the next COP without getting positive and concrete responses on the issues that they want dealt with, which are transfer of technology, which are new financing mechanisms to be able to finance adaptation and combat climate change, which are everything it takes to move development in a new direction.

Watch an excerpt of his interview with OneWorld TV at the Climate Vulnerable Forum in Bangladesh:

“We can leapfrog from where we are today to a new, global low-carbon economy that will provide the jobs, the opportunities for entrepreneurship, and for capital deployment that we need to get out of the economic crisis which we are now in,” said Figueres, sounding a note of hope.

“We are already witnessing important amounts of suffering caused by climate change,” Figueres concluded. “That should be enough to get us acting.”

This is a revision of an earlier article to reflect the evolving international climate negotiations.

by Daniel J. Weiss, Andrew Light and Jackie Weidman

The 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) begins today in Durban, South Africa.

In advance of the meeting, some nations have legitimately criticized the United States for its lack of leadership in the development of a climate agreement that puts the world on the path to reducing the carbon and other pollution responsible for climate change.

A variety of issues will confront the Obama administration at the meeting, particularly additional progress on the essential measures advanced last year at COP16 in Cancun, Mexico.  Most importantly, COP17 must agree to an implementing document for the Green Climate Fund that will finance adaptation efforts in developing nations likely to be affected by climate change.

Another key element is the emerging deal over how and whether the Kyoto Protocol will be extended for a second commitment period beyond 2012.  While the U.S. is not a party to that agreement, the European Union is pressuring all parties at this year’s COP to agree to opening discussions for a new binding treaty after 2020 in exchange for their commitment to keep the protocol in place for another five years.

As they have in years past, the United States negotiating team has been playing hard ball.  For example, it demands that any emerging climate agreement after 2020 be relatively symmetrical for all major carbon polluters, especially China.  But, as in years past, American efforts to shape the outcome of the meeting are again hampered by criticisms by other nations for its lack of leadership in reducing its own emissions.  Connie Hedegaard, European commissioner for climate action, urged that in deciding climate policy, “it only makes sense if major emitters are willing to say, if not what, [then] when are you willing to say you’re willing to commit.”

Read more

So there were these hacked emails.  Made a big ruckus back in the day.  You remember, that time long, long ago when people were still excited about things like international climate change negotiations and Tiger Woods and President Obama, for that matter.

You must have heard of those emails.  At least if you watch Fox News.

Anyway, somebody got the idea that the three remaining conservatives who understand climate science needed stomping on.  So the cherry-picking perpetrators released a few more emails that apparently weren’t even considered sexy enough for prime time the first time around.  You know, like those midseason replacement TV shows that get canceled almost immediately or movies that are so lame they go straight to DVD.

Since they have nothing better to do, the people who wrote those emails and actually know what they mean thought somebody, anybody might be interested in that, as opposed to the umpteenth story on how “scientists are human beings, therefore they are no different from, say, journalists, and who really believes anything those folks say?”

So here forthwith are two pieces, one from the University of East Anglia and the other from the UK Guardian.  Warning:  It ain’t The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, though it does have a higher body count, at least in the long term….

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more

Next week, Climate Progress will be heading to the COP 17 climate conference in Durban, South Africa, to report on any developments coming out of the meeting.

Hopes are not high for any major progress. But Andrew Light, coordinator of international climate policy at the Center for American Progress, warns against making assumptions about what will or will not happen.

Since the failure to get an international climate treaty in 2009, negotiators have focused on setting aside funds for adaptation and mitigation programs in developing countries. One of the goals at this year’s meeting will be to nail down specific commitments to the Green Fund, an international pool of money that was designed to reach $100 billion a year by 2020. If the international community is able to agree on the details of the fund, it would be a very positive step.

There will also be a debate about whether or not to extend the Kyoto Protocol, or to let it expire and work toward a new global agreement to reduce carbon emissions. CAP’s Light says there will be “a clash between these two competing agendas.”

To hear more about what we may see coming out of climate talks over the next two weeks, watch the interview with Andrew Light below:

by Bill Becker

Here are some questions for the Occupiers, the Tea Party demonstrators, the people engaged in the Arab Spring and those around the world who are too hungry, too tired, too discouraged or too occupied with basic survival to protest.

These are questions, too, for the young people who will inherit the future we are setting in motion today, and the elders who are concerned about the world they are leaving their grandchildren.

Most of us want things to be better.  We don’t want the kind of world we’ll get if we allow global climate change, resource conflicts, resource constraints, environmental degradation, overwhelming population growth, helter-skelter urbanization, war, social injustice and other looming problems to go unaddressed.

We have a pretty good idea what we should avoid. But what should we build?

We have incredible technologies and tools today – arguably all we need to create communities that are resource efficient, resilient, safe and prosperous while treading lightly on the environment.  How would our lives be improved if we deployed the best sustainable development technologies and practices? How would it impact future generations?

Those questions are at the heart of a campaign called “The Future We Want,” announced this week by Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations.  The UN has chosen “The Future We Want” as  the tagline of Rio+20, its  international conference next June on sustainable development.  Coming on the 20^th anniversary of the first Earth Summit, the conference has symbolic importance. We hope it will have concrete significance, too.

Read more

Highlighting the threat of global warming pollution, killer floods have struck Durban, South Africa, as international climate talks begin there. Ten people along South Africa’s east coast were killed, 700 houses destroyed, and thousands left homeless following torrential rains on Sunday:

According to the South Africa Weather Bureau, 2.5 inches of rain fell last night in Durban, which had already recorded 8.2 inches for November, almost double its average.

Some beach-related activities of the United Nations climate conference have been delayed by a day.

This record-setting killer flooding is part of a long-term trend of climate change. Over a decade ago, climate scientists had already measured a significant increase in extreme rainfall on South Africa’s eastern coast, finding “increases of over 50% in the intensity of 10-year high rainfall events” from 1930 to 1990. A 2006 analysis found that global warming pollution will continue to increase overall precipitation and extreme rainfall events during the South African summer (December through February).

Heavy rains are expected to continue for the rest of the week.

Franken-algae may be key to reducing carbon emissions. But do they represent a different environmental threat?

Researchers at Iowa State University say they’ve unlocked a genetic pathway in algae that can dramatically increase the amount of CO2 consumed by the organisms, thus helping recycle more of the greenhouse gas and increasing oil yields for non-food based biofuels by as much as 50%.

Algae use two genes — LCIA and LCIB — to help them regulate CO2 intake. When growing in low-CO2 environments, these two genes are activated to help the organisms take in more of the gas to their cells. But when CO2 concentrations are high, the genes are shut off.

Researchers led by Iowa State Professor of Genetics Martin Spalding figured out how to keep those genes turned on all the time, turning this strain of algae (Chlamydomonas reinhardtii) into a CO2-sucking, biomass-producing machine:

Read more

As Climate Talks Begin, America is “Not Bringing a Lot to the Table”

Other key stories below: Global Warming 2° C Target “No Longer Attainable”; Can Carbon for the Price of Pizza Save the Planet?

Ahead of Climate Talks, U.S. Leadership in Question

A new round of United Nations climate talks is getting under way in Durban, South Africa, Monday. And domestic struggles here in the United States are hampering the global talks….

That’s putting a crimp on the 20-year-long struggle to develop a meaningful climate treaty.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more