The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released an analysis, “U.S. sets record with a dozen billion-dollar weather disasters in one year.”  They report:

• To date, the United States set a record with 12 separate billion dollar weather/climate disasters in 2011, with an aggregate damage total of approximately $52 billion. This record year breaks the previous record of nine billion-dollar weather/climate disasters in one year, which occurred in 2008.
• These twelve disasters alone resulted in the tragic loss of 646 lives, with the National Weather Service reporting over 1,000 deaths across all weather categories for the year.
• Previously only 10 events were reported; the two new billion-dollar weather and climate events added to the 2011 total include:
  • The Texas, New Mexico, Arizona wildfires event, now exceeding $1 billion, had been previously accounted for in the larger Southern Plains drought and heatwave event. This is in line with how NOAA has traditionally accounted for large wildfire events as separate events.
  • The June 18-22 Midwest/Southeast Tornadoes and Severe Weather event, which just recently exceeded the $1 billion threshold

UPDATE:  ClimateWire (subs. req’d) reported on Thursday:

… this year was not an aberration, NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco said during a speech here yesterday.

The seemingly endless onslaught of floods, droughts, wildfires, windstorms, blizzards and tornadoes that have marked 2011 fit within an ongoing increase in the number of natural disasters recorded in the United States, she said, citing statistics maintained by reinsurer Munich Re.

And at least some of that increase appears to be driven by climate change, Lubchenco said, citing a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“What we are seeing this year is not just an anomalous year, but a harbinger of things to come for at least a subset of those extreme events that we are tallying,” the NOAA chief told attendees of the American Geophysical Union’s fall meeting.

In September 2010, Munich Re one of the world’s leading reinsurers, wrote “the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change.”  Here is the chart on their statistics:

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more

Politico reports this news coming from President Obama’s joint appearance with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

“Any effort to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut, I will reject. So everybody can be on notice,” Obama said in a warning to Congressional Republicans.

“If the payroll tax cut is attached to a whole bunch of extraneous issues, not related to making sure that the American people’s taxes don’t go up on January 1, then it’s not something that I’m going to accept. I don’t expect to have to veto it because I expect they’re going to have enough sense over on Capitol Hill to do the people’s business and not try to load it up with a bunch of politics,” Obama said.

House Speaker John Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck fires back:  ”We are working on a bill to stop a tax hike, protect Social Security, reform unemployment insurance, and create jobs. If President Obama threatens to veto it over a provision that creates American jobs, that’s a fight we’re ready to have.”

It would appear Obama is eager for this fight, since it pits the 99% who benefit from the payroll tax with the 1% who benefit from the tar sands pipeline.

A group of world leaders is calling for negotiators in Durban to move forward on a deal that they say would prevent massive deforestation and help substantially reduce carbon emissions.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon joined famed British anthropologist Jane Goodall at the COP 17 climate conference today to support a mechanism called REDD+ (also known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation).

They called it a “win-win” for reducing carbon emissions and preserving biodiversity.

The REDD+ mechanism, which is still being hashed out by negotiators this week, allows emitters to offset a portion of their emissions through forest preservation projects in developing countries. It’s one of the main agenda items in Durban actually getting traction.

Also joining the event to support REDD+ were Bill and Hillary Clinton, who spoke to a diverse crowd of diplomats, journalists and NGOs via separate recorded video messages.

“Clearing and burning of tropical rainforests is responsible for approximately 15% of global carbon emissions, but conserving forests is one of the most affordable ways to reduce pollution,” said Clinton in a brief address to a large crowd. “Help us fight one of the greatest threats in history.”

Read more

Oklahoma Senator and leading American climate denier Jim Inhofe decided not to make a fool out of himself by attending the Durban climate talks in person. Instead, he decided to make a fool out of himself on video.

In a statement broadcast at a side event in Durban, Inhofe hailed the defeat of climate legislation in the U.S. and called for an end to Obama’s presidency “for the sake of my kids and grandkids.” He also claimed that the roughly 16,000 people attending the Durban climate talks “are being ignored.”

However, here on the ground at the climate talks in Durban, South Africa, I tried to find a single person who had heard about Inhofe’s video speech. I still haven’t found one person who knew or cared — if they even knew who he was at all.

Watch the video, if you can stomach it:

Read more

Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman attempted to recover from attacks on climate science he made yesterday at the Heritage Foundation, reclaiming his “faith and trust in science.” At a oil-industry-sponsored blogger briefing on Tuesday, Huntsman said that the “scientific community owes us more,” citing “questions about the validity of the science.” Speaking to reporters today, Huntsman tried to argue he was just mentioning the existence of climate skeptics, not casting his lot with polluter-supported deniers:

I put my faith and trust in science. So you have 99 of 100 climate scientists who have come out and talked about climate change in certain terms, what is responsible for it. I tend to say this is a discussion that should not be in the political lane but should be in the scientific lane. Is there a one percent that has a disagreement? There’s a one percent that has a disagreement. Will those discussions continue, as they always do in the scientific community, to clear up those areas of ambiguity? I suspect so. But, as for me, I’m on the side of science on this one.

The “side of science” is straightforward: urgent action is needed to rapidly reduce carbon pollution to avoid catastrophic risks. Unfortunately, even though Huntsman’s rhetorical support of science is preferable to the slander and denigration that his opponents prefer, Huntsman still rejects the conclusion that global warming poses an immediate threat to society:

When you have 99 out of 100 climate scientists, there’s enough there for us to say we have an established body of science. Now it would be a very good thing to coordinate that science with the other major emitters on the globe, recognizing that it is an international problem. I don’t want to disadvantage this country during a time when we are weak economically and want to get back on our feet.

This do-nothing stance is no change from what Huntsman said yesterday, when he was casting explicit doubt on the scientific community: “There’s not information right now to formulate policies in terms of addressing it over all.”

And it’s no different than his do-nothing stance expressed in May, when he said “this isn’t the moment” to fight the climate pollution threat.

by Shauna Theel, in a Media Matters cross-post

That was August.  Back then Jon Huntsman thought the road to the GOP nomination was as the sole “truth teller” in the race.  So he was the guy who slammed Perry and the GOP for its anti-science denial: We Are “On the Wrong Side of Science and Therefore in a Losing Position.”

But now it’s December, and flat-lining Huntsman has a new observation-based theory: The way to rise to the top is by saying the most extreme things possible, as Michelle Bachmann, then Rick Perry, then Herman Cain, and finally Newt Gingrich (!) has shown.

And so we have this pathetic flip-flip to the self-defined “crazy” side.  When Huntsman was asked by a conservative blogger if humans contribute to global warming, he replied:

“I don’t know, I’m not a scientist, nor am I a physicist, but I would defer to science …  The scientific community owes us more in terms of a better description or explanation about what might lie beneath all of this. But there’s not enough info right now to be able to formulate policies in terms of addressing it overall, primarily because it’s a global issue.”

Let’s see.  The scientific community in the United States, as reflected by its cautious, centrist “Supreme Court,” the National Academy of Sciences, was pretty clear this year:

National Academy calls on nation to “substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions” starting ASAP: Final report warns, “Waiting for unacceptable impacts to occur before taking action is imprudent because … many of these changes will persist for hundreds or even thousands of years.”

As for what “might lie beneath all this,” see National Academy (2010) labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”  And the very latest science tells us that it’s “Extremely Likely That at Least 74% of Observed Warming Since 1950″ Was Manmade; It’s Highly Likely All of It Was.

It’s worth noting just how much a flip-flop this is.  Back in August, Huntsman said:

When we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position.

UPDATE:  Responding to criticism, Huntsman has partly unflipped his flop (see here).  I’ll repost his entire remarks at the end.

But it gets even worse for Huntsman.  When a reporter then asked him if this was a change in his postion, Huntsman replied that “there’s probably more debate yet to play out” in the scientific community:

I’m not a physicist, I’m not a scientist. I tend to defer to those who do it for a living. I’d be prepared to take it out of the political milieu and put it into the scientific milieu. There are questions about the validity of the science — evidence by one university over in Scotland recently.

East Anglia

One university over in Scotland?

Politico, among others, notes that Huntsman is “apparently alluding to the ‘Climategate 2.0′ emails from England’s East Anglia University released last month.”

Except of course the University of East Anglia is not in Scotland or close to it.  It’s in … East Anglia!  And that is the “traditional name for a region of eastern England.”  Duh.

Needless to say, or, I guess, needful to say, Scotland is famous for being north of England.  So this wins Huntsman an “F” in geography.

It’s doubly ironic because when Huntsman was taking on Perry, he explained that the reason it is counterproductive and self-destructive for Republicans to “jettison” and “shun” science that they don’t like, is “we raise up our young people, we tell them to get a good education”:
Read more

In its cover story this week, the National Journal explores a curious phenomenon: while the science supporting climate change has only gotten stronger, the onetime Republican consensus on the issue has fallen apart. The reason, quite simply, is the right-wing polluter Koch Industries and its political front group Americans for Prosperity.

As Political Correction notes, just three years ago, Republicans including Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) all expressed a belief in human-caused climate change. Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) even supported legislation to reduce carbon pollution. But all of these prominent leaders have since joined the rest of the Republican party “in a sudden and near-unified retreat to silence or denial.”

What’s changed for Republican politicians is “the influx into electoral politics of vast sums of money from energy companies and sympathetic interest groups”:

Republicans have long had close financial ties to the fossil-fuel industry, of course. Between 1998 and 2010, the oil-and-gas industry gave 75 percent of its $284 million in political contributions to Republicans. [...]

Among the most influential of the new breed of so-called super PACs is the tea party group Americans for Prosperity, founded by David and Charles Koch, the principal owners of Koch Industries, a major U.S. oil conglomerate. As Koch Industries has lobbied aggressively against climate-change policy, Americans for Prosperity has spearheaded an all-fronts campaign using advertising, social media, and cross-country events aimed at electing lawmakers who will ensure that the oil industry won’t have to worry about any new regulations.

AFP President Tim Phillips proudly takes credit for the GOP’s turnaround and readily admits that his group threatened politicians with “political peril” if they “played footsie” with green solutions:

Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, says there’s no question that the influence of his group and others like it has been instrumental in the rise of Republican candidates who question or deny climate science…“We’ve made great headway. What it means for candidates on the Republican side is, if you…buy into green energy or you play footsie on this issue, you do so at your political peril. The vast majority of people who are involved in the [Republican] nominating process—the conventions and the primaries—are suspect of the science. And that’s our influence. Groups like Americans for Prosperity have done it.”

Thanks to AFP “science has become political,” Phillips says, and “most of these candidates have figured” that out. AFP used to claim, “We’re not arguing the science of climate change,” but got bolder as it gained more influence, boasting, “if we win the science argument it’s game, set, and match.” With AFP menacing lawmakers in the background, threatening to choke off campaign money and dangling their political careers in front of them, it’s no wonder so many Republicans have willfully ignored the indisputable truth of climate change.

As ThinkProgress has reported, AFP is notorious for its astroturfing, or fake grassroots efforts, that include tactics like planting carbon-copy opinion pieces in local newspapers. They’ve become the unparalleled enforcer of far right-wing ideology, funneling millions of oil and coal industry dollars cash across the nation to spread their message of global warming denial.

(HT: Political Correction)

Vice President Al Gore is disappointed that Newt Gingrich has turned his back on climate action after having appeared in one of his global warming ads, but doesn’t take it personally. Campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination this year, Gingrich has said the ad he did with Nancy Pelosi in 2007 was the “dumbest single thing I’ve done.” Gore told the Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur that he thinks the Republican candidates are being “bludgeoned” by special interests to “toe the line”:

I appreciated him agreeing to my request that he did it, and I don’t want to be ungracious now. I’m grateful that he did it, and I’m sorry that he’s changed his position. But what it says is more about the condition of the political system today, particularly in the Republican Party, but really across the board. The special interests have so much power, they’re really able to bludgeon the candidates to toe the line.

Watch it:

“Mitt Romney used to have a different position,” Gore noted when asked about Jon Huntsman’s recent climate reversal. “Several of them did.”

AP Photo/Schalk van Zuydam

by Lauren Simenauer, in a Science Progress cross-post

Delegates from 194 parties are meeting in Durban, South Africa, for the annual U.N. Conference of Parties, or COP, climate change conference. Among topics being addressed is the reduction of carbon emissions worldwide, clean energy funding in lower-income nations, and the future of the Kyoto Protocol. One lesser-discussed issue that diplomats will address is the growing body of science about the impacts of climate change on global health.

The National Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, identified six natural disaster events thought to be exacerbated by climate change. Those events include ozone air pollution, heat waves, the spread of infectious disease, river flooding, hurricanes, and wildfires. Tragically, extreme weather ravaged Durban itself just days before international delegates arrived. Torrential rains caused severe flooding that destroyed 700 homes and resulted in the deaths of 10 people. But beyond the immediate effects, all these disasters have wide-reaching consequences for national health, and a study published in Health Affairs magazine estimated that health costs incurred from the tragedies exceeded $14 billion from 2000 to 2009.

In the national debate on health care, it is imperative that the international community and our lawmakers at home not ignore the value of preventing the damage that climate change will cause to both the environment and human health.

Read more

by Jorge Madrid and Matt Kasper

Last week President Obama, with the help of former President Bill Clinton and other partners including the Center for American Progress, flexed some executive power to leverage $4 billion in government and private sector funds to finance energy efficiency building projects across the United States – creating jobs, reducing pollution, and cutting energy costs.

“The Trifecta” President Obama called it.

With commitments to retrofit over 4 billion square feet of commercial real estate, American construction and manufacturing workers will be getting back on the job — at zero cost to taxpayers.

That’s right. The investment will pay for itself by way of energy savings.

The executive order will direct all federal agencies to make at least $2 billion worth of energy-efficiency upgrades in the next two years. This investment will be matched dollar for dollar by a coalition of over 60 private-sector companies, including 3M, Alcoa, GE and Southern California Edison, along with nonprofit organizations, state and local governments and universities, to upgrade a minimum of 1.6 billion sq. ft. of commercial and office space.

The efforts were made in response to a challenge set by President Obama earlier this year called the Better Buildings Initiative, a program that would achieve 20 percent energy saving by 2020, saving American business’ nearly $40 billion every year in energy costs. Former President Clinton, who was asked by President Obama to help lead this Better Buildings challenge, spoke forcefully on the economic common sense of moving forward immediately on energy efficiency:

Read more

by Melanie Hart and Tong Zhao

Many eyes are on the international climate negotiations in Durban, South Africa this week — particularly on China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter.

The international community is upping the pressure on China to take serious steps to reduce emissions. China’s biggest climate pressures, however, are coming from within.

As living standards go up, Chinese citizens are paying more attention to quality-of-life issues, particularly air quality. They are pressuring their government to reduce air pollution — much as U.S. citizens pushed for the Clean Air Act — and that pressure is giving the Chinese leadership new incentives to adopt tighter air pollution standards and to take on more ambitious emissions reduction programs.

Air quality has been a hot topic in China for years, but the U.S. Embassy in Beijing added to the debate by offering an alternative source of information about local air pollution and the potential impacts on citizen health. In 2008 the U.S. embassy installed a roof-top air quality monitoring system that samples the Beijing air every hour. The embassy provides a mobile app that anyone can register for to receive the hourly readings, which define the conditions as “fine,” “terrible” or “hazardous” depending on the amount of pollution particles in the air.

These reports have created a major controversy in China, because the U.S. embassy bases their assessments on EPA standards that measure particulate air pollution down to the smaller (2.5 microns in diameter and below) particles.  China’s standards, in contrast, only measure and report particles down to the 10 micron (micrometer) level. That is a critical oversight, because PM 2.5 particles are among the most dangerous. Due to their small size, they can penetrate deeper into the lungs and cause more severe health damage.

Read more