Frank Luntz, arguably the GOP’s top messaging strategist, said Wednesday:

“I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death. They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”

So just as he did with his infamous 2003 global warming warming memo –  which taught conservatives how to sound like they care about the issue while opposing all action — Luntz has some key advice for Republicans on how to pretend to care about regular people while continuing to screw them over.

Amazingly, “Yahoo News sat in on the session,” where Luntz went through his spin at the Republican Governor’s Association on “How can Republicans do a better job of talking about Occupy Wall Street?”

Here are key do’s and don’ts from Luntz:

• Don’t say ‘capitalism.’
• Don’t say that the government ‘taxes the rich.’ Instead, tell them that the government ‘takes from the rich.’
• Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the ‘middle class.’ Call them ‘hardworking taxpayers.’
• Don’t say ‘government spending.’ Call it ‘waste.’
• Don’t ever say you’re willing to ‘compromise.’
• The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: ‘I get it.’
• Out: ‘Entrepreneur.’ In: ‘Job creator.’
• “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”
• Don’t ever ask anyone you want them to ‘sacrifice.’
• Always blame Washington.

Yes, and some in the media still try to apportion blame equally between Democrats and Republicans for the toxic state  of American politics.

George Orwell, in his famous 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language,” wrote that

“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.  Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Democrats do sometimes misuse the language and create euphemisms.  All politicians do.  But it is Luntz and his legion of conservative followers who have twisted the English language beyond recognition.  They are the true Orwellians.  The GOP parrot him as if they were reciting lessons in grammar school (see, for instance, Luntz’s memo, “The Language of Healthcare 2009,” which became the GOP playbook for attacking reform).

Is there any nonsense phrase that has been repeated to death this year more than “job creator” — in spite of the fact that for all of the wealth GOP policies have showered on the wealthy they didn’t actually create any net jobs under President Bush?

And yes, I put “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming” into the list above even though it is from Luntz’s 2003 climate memo.  I included it because conservatives continue trying to blame “the left” for supposedly changing the name from “global warming” to “climate change” (see Debunking the dumbest denier myth: ‘Climate Change’ vs. ‘Global Warming’).  For the record, while I would normally be inclined to recommend progressives say the exact opposite of whatever Luntz recommends for conservatives, there is way too much conflicting analysis to suggest that one of those terms is somehow more effective than the other. Feel free to use both.

How powerful are Luntz’s memos in the energy/climate debate (he wrote one on energy in 2005)?  Just think how many people who want to sound like they care about the issue follow his advice and talk about breakthrough technology as the only answer — see Bush climate speech follows Luntz playbook: “Technology, technology, blah, blah, blah.” As Business Week noted at the time “what’s most striking about Bush’s Apr. 27 speech is how closely it follows the script written by Luntz earlier this year.”

Returning to Luntz’s Occupy Wall Street advice, his comments on capitalism are the most revealing and important for progressives.

Read more

Tea Party Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) castigated electric cars on G. Gordon Liddy’s radio show today, expressing his adamant opposition because, in the freshman’s words, “this is science that doesn’t make sense.”

Kelly, who was a wealthy car dealer before winning election in 2010, and Liddy spent the majority of the interview trading barbs about the Chevy Volt, a landmark American electric car produced by General Motors.

The Pennsylvania Republican said that the government ought not to help fund innovative renewable energy projects like the Volt because the “science [is] way out in front of the market.” Kelly went on to explain that “this is science that doesn’t make sense,” despite the fact that electric car technology has existed for nearly a century and was first developed by Henry Ford and Thomas Edison. He later declared that House Republicans “want to pull the plug on electric cars”:

KELLY: My problem with the Volt sir, and you and I have had this conversation. This is science that’s way out in front of the market. This is science that doesn’t make sense.

Listen to it:

Kelly’s opposition to subsidies appears to only include clean, renewable energies. In July, Kelly defended federal subsidies for oil and gas companies because “we want companies to be profitable.” The Tea Party Republican holds millions of dollars worth of stocks in Pennsylvania oil and gas companies.

In short, Kelly opposes funding clean energy projects because the science “doesn’t make sense,” but supports funding dirty energy because we want oil and gas companies “to be profitable.”

Every couple of years we go through the same thing: Key tax credits for the wind industry come close to expiring, Congress does nothing until the last minute (if anything), and we see disruption in the wind sector.

Despite the tens of thousands of jobs, the billions in local economic activity, the immense bipartisan support, and the technological progress being made in this country,  Congress is still holding the wind industry hostage through inaction on the Production Tax Credit. All the while, oil and gas companies enjoy permanent tax credits for all kinds of activity. The standards we’ve created in energy incentives are mind boggling.

Rather than grovel on Capitol Hill, a coalition of wind energy companies is hitting back with a more aggressive message through the Save USA Wind Jobs campaign. The group features a range of blade and turbine manufacturers, truckers, components producers, developers, maintenance companies, and advocacy organizations.

Are members of Congress ready to listen? Or will they ignore the thousands of businesses around the country that would be negatively impacted by an expiration of this key tax credit?

The International Energy Agency is notoriously conservative on projections for renewable energy. The agency has embraced the need for more clean electricity and fuels to address climate change and peak oil, but its outlook for the future is usually far more conservative than how reality plays out.

So when an official at the IEA says we could get up to one third of our global energy supply from solar photovoltaics, concentrating solar power, and solar hot water by 2060, that’s a fairly big piece of news. But even that projection may be conservative.

Speaking to Bloomberg News, the head of IEA’s renewable energy unit explained said he thought the target is feasible:

“The strength of solar is the incredible variety and flexibility of applications, from small scale to big scale,” Paolo Frankl, the agency’s head of renewable energy, said in a telephone interview yesterday.

Economic activity will shift toward the sunnier zones around the equator by 2050, making solar energy a viable power source for most of the global economy, the report said. Those regions will be home to almost 80 percent of the human race by the middle of the century, compared with about 70 percent today, and their energy needs will be higher as living standards in countries such as Brazil and India approach those of the U.S. and Europe.

The IEA is clearly responding to the fast-changing world of solar energy. It has released a new publication, Solar Energy Perspectives, that mirrors one of its flagship research products, Energy Technology Perspectives.

Read more

In a new interview with Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) reiterated his delusional claim that manmade global warming is “the greatest hoax ever.” Inhofe believes that the last eight years of record warmth and catastrophic weather have vindicated his claim, and that he is “doing the Lord’s work” by demonizing attempts to limit fossil fuel pollution:

You might remember, it was 2003 when I made the statement that the idea that manmade gases, CO2, are causing catastrophic global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. I was hated at that time, but now people realize I was right. That, by the way, is the title of my book that’s going to come out in January.

“We’re both doing the Lord’s work, Noel,” he told his interviewer.

Inhofe’s assessment is not shared by many.

Pope Benedict XVI, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, believes there is a “global responsibility” to find the “moral will” to combat the “threatening catastrophe” of climate change.

American ecumenical organizations including Church World Service and the National Council of Churches of Christ have sent letters to President Obama, urging him to do all he can towards reaching “a fair, ambitious and binding agreement that sets forth a truly moral response to climate change.”

“Global climate change is predominantly caused by our burning of fossil fuels,” Inhofe’s own church, the Presbyterian Church of the USA, has recognized. The church issued a resolution in 2008 that “calls upon all Presbyterians to take this seriously, to pray asking for God’s forgiveness and guidance, to study this issue, to calculate your carbon emissions, to educate others, and to use less energy, striving to make your life carbon neutral.”

Back in February, a major study found that thawing permafrost feedback will turn Arctic from carbon sink to source in the 2020s, releasing 100 billion tons of carbon by 2100.  That study, by NOAA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center, conservatively assumed all of the carbon would be released as CO2 and none as the far more potent greenhouse gas, methane (CH4).

But that is unlikely, as this video of University of Alaska, Fairbanks, assistant professor Katey Walter Anthony, suggests:

A new article in Nature, “Climate change: High risk of permafrost thaw” (subs. req’d) concludes:

Arctic temperatures are rising fast, and permafrost is thawing…. Our collective estimate is that carbon will be released more quickly than models suggest, and at levels that are cause for serious concern.

We calculate that permafrost thaw will release the same order of magnitude of carbon as deforestation if current rates of deforestation continue. But because these emissions include significant quantities of methane, the overall effect on climate could be 2.5 times larger.

The permafrost permamelt contains a staggering amount of carbon, which is starting to escape:

Recent years have brought reports from the far north of tundra fires¹, the release of ancient carbon², CH₄ bubbling out of lakes³ and gigantic stores of frozen soil carbon⁴. The latest estimate is that some 18.8 million square kilometres of northern soils hold about 1,700 billion tonnes of organic carbon⁴ — the remains of plants and animals that have been accumulating in the soil over thousands of years. That is about four times more than all the carbon emitted by human activity in modern times and twice as much as is present in the atmosphere now.

As the article explains (see below), much of that carbon would be released as methane.  Methane is 25 times as potent a heat-trapping gas as CO2 over a 100 year time horizon, but 72 times to 100 times as potent over 20 years! 

The carbon is locked in a freezer in the part of the planet warming up the fastest (see “Tundra 4: Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss“).  Countless studies make clear that global warming will release vast quantities of GHGs into the atmosphere this decade.  Yet, no climate model currently incorporates the amplifying feedback from methane released by a defrosting tundra.

The new analysis is based on a survey of “41 international scientists, listed as authors here, who publish on various aspects of permafrost.”  Yet even this new paper is conservative.  Their worst-case scenario appears to be derived from the out-of-date 2007 IPCC report, whereby Arctic warming “only” hits 7.5°C [13.5°F] by 2100.  And the new article further assumes temperature is then held constant for the next 200 years.

More recent analyses make clear that business-as-usual warming — not worst-case –  is likely to be considerably higher (see, for instance, “M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10°F — with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20°F“).  And the Earth would continue warming well past 2100, perhaps 50% to 100% more.

Even so, the new analysis finds the permafrost releases up to 380 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent by 2100.  This is comparable to the NOAA/NSIDC finding for this century, which looks like this:

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more

by Jocelyn Fong, cross-posted from Media Matters

On the day after Thanksgiving, Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton called on readers to “give thanks” for Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Joe Stephens, who have been “dogging the trail of Solyndra.” Pexton said their reporting on Solyndra showed that the Post produces journalism that is “hard-hitting regardless of who is in power.”

Leonnig and Stephens have certainly provided the play-by-play of the political battle over Solyndra’s failure. As Pexton notes, much of their reporting relied on the Republican-led investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, with each strategically-timed document release and hearing garnering a Post article or two.

Pexton didn’t analyze the Post’s coverage in detail or with a critical eye, so here are some of my own observations:

Read more

Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, which “goes beyond its commonly stated farm dust mission to exempt a variety of situations from Clean Air Act authority,” including particulate pollution from open-pit mining, lead smelters and chemical and industrial facilities.

Republicans are running a shell game based on numerous lies:

– Even though dust related to industrial agriculture can be toxic and dangerous, conservatives like Newt Gingrich mock the threat.

– Even though the Environmental Protection Agency isn’t planning any new regulations, Republicans claim the EPA is trying to issue a new rule.

– Using “farm dust” as cover, Republicans write legislative language to exempt toxic pollution from mining and other industrial activities.

The “farm dust” scam is pernicious and deadly. But it’s a polluter lobbyist’s dream.

by Cole Mellino

When copying the model of land-based industrialized farming, current aquaculture practices can have many of the same negative environmental impacts inherent in industrial-scale agriculture.

U.S. aquaculture operations, primarily producing shellfish, are subject to stringent environmental regulations. But due to the poorly regulated use of high amounts of chemicals and antibiotics to maintain massive, centralized monocultures of fish and shrimp particularly in South America and southeast Asia, aquaculture farms have gained a reputation for polluting water and producing poor-quality food.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. The Atlantic had a fantastic piece this week on the growing movement to clean up aquaculture operations — producing better food, sustainable biproducts, and making them a solution to environmental problems:

Unsurprisingly, once information got out among the general public, “aquaculture” quickly became a dirty word. Industry responded with a strategy of mislabeling seafood and upping their marketing budgets, rather than investing in more sustainable and environmentally benign farming techniques.

But a small group of ocean farmers and scientists decided to chart a different course. Rather than relying on mono-aquaculture operations, these new ocean farms are pioneering muti-tropic and sea-vegetable aquaculture, whereby ocean farmers grow abundant, high-quality seafood while improving, rather than damaging, the environment.

One of the keys? Seaweed. This type of algae, which can be used for everything from food to fertilizer, could be a major piece of creating a network of sustainable farming operations:

Read more

Despite the urgency of the Durban climate talks, industry interests have largely undercut global progress on lowering greenhouse gases. One example is the news that the United Kingdom has been quietly working to prevent a European Union climate penalty on Canadian tar sands oil. Throughout Europe’s negotiations, the U.K. government has been in close contact with oil companies Shell and BP:

At least 15 high-level meetings and frequent communications have taken place since September, with David Cameron discussing the issue with his counterpart Stephen Harper during his visit to Canada, and stating privately that the UK wanted “to work with Canada on finding a way forward”, according to documents released under freedom of information laws.

As Europe grapples with cutting greenhouse gases, U.S. activists are fighting the development of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline. Tar sands produce an even dirtier form of oil than conventional crude, with 23 percent higher greenhouse pollution, and NASA scientist James Hansen says development would mean “game over for the climate.”

The Guardian’s revelation about lobbying in the U.K. simply highlights how special interests have swayed decision-makers both domestically and abroad. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has lobbied seven state governments to approve the project. And in Canada, TransCanada lobbyists have met with Canadian officials at least 56 times since May.

President Obama’s decision regarding Keystone XL, as well as the European vote on tar sands penalties this Friday, present opportunities for nations to finally put public interest ahead of Big Oil’s gains.

by Anthony Swift, reposted from NRDC’s Switchboard

Colorado officials fear that vast amounts of petroleum have been leaking into the South Platte River from a broken pipeline at a refinery operated by tar sands producer Suncor.

It is not yet clear how long oil has been leaking into the South Platte River, how much has been spilled or what substance was spilled. State officials are currently testing the water on the South Platte River, a major source of drinking water, wildlife habitat and agricultural water for Colorado and the Midwest. Meanwhile, levels of benzene and volatile organic compounds at the nearby Denver Metro Wastewater plant required a partial closure.

Suncor is the oldest tar sands producers, up to 90% of its production comprised of tar sands bitumen. The company uses its Colorado refinery to process some of the heavy tar sands coming from the Express and Platte pipelines. At a time when companies like TransCanada and Enbridge are proposing to build tar sands infrastructure through our rivers and water resources—and some in Congress are trying to speed up the process by skipping environmental review—this spill provides another sad example of what can go wrong with these projects.

The spill was discovered on Sunday morning by Trevor Tanner, a fisherman who saw sheen on the South Platte River and said the area smelled like a gas station. In his account:

Read more

Other stories below: Republicans demand quick approval of Keystone XL pipeline; Green groups blast Hillary Clinton’s approach to climate negotiations

Groups frame climate as a moral cause

This is kind of big, so the cartoon is after the jump.

The headline, from Firstdog at Crikey, reads:

Bitter Climate Science Tryst Shock Scandal Rift Emails Exposed

Read more