Last year, Colorado saw a record snowfall, with 525 inches falling during ski season. But this year, while massive snowfalls in Alaska have collapsed roofs, the state is suffering from the worst snow drought since the early 1980s. “For the first time in 30 years, a lack of snow has not allowed us to open the back bowls in Vail as of January 6, 2012, and, for the first time since the late 1800s, it did not snow at all in Tahoe in December,” said Vail Resorts CEO Rob Katz.

The state’s ski industry is hurting, but a coming water shortage caused by the lack of snow could be worse, according to the Colorado Independent:

Ski industry woes aside, state water watchers and firefighters are nervously eyeing the miniscule mountain snowpack, which supplies so much of the water used by Front Range cities. As of Dec. 30, snowpack in the Colorado River basin was 44 percent of last year’s record level and just 63 percent of the annual average.

“[The drought] will make the beetle epidemic even more severe,” said state Sen. Gail Schwartz, a Snowmass Democrat who’s introducing a bill in the legislative session starting Wednesday that’s aimed at reducing the fire danger from a mountain pine bark beetle epidemic that has killed millions of acres of Colorado lodgepole pines. “What doesn’t burn down will blow down.” [...]

The last time Colorado’s high country was even close to this dry in mid-winter was during the 2001-02 ski season, which was followed by the worst wildfire season in the state’s history. June of 2002 saw the massive Hayman Fire scorch nearly 138,000 acres of land in the mountains southwest of Denver, darkening Front Range skies and loading key water storage facilities with debris from subsequent erosion.

Auden Schendler, vice president of sustainability at Aspen Skiing Company, points out that the NASA global temperature anomaly maps show that December just keeps getting warmer, which creates the extreme swings. “It’s key to remember that warming might actually bring bigger storms to the Rockies due to there being more moisture in the air,” Schendler said. “At the same time, because the atmosphere can hold more water, it can suck the land dry of more water than before.”

And as greenhouse gas pollution continues to warm the planet, people will continue to face — and have to prepare for — unseasonably warm weather in January in one area and extreme amounts of snow in another.

“Politics is the art of controlling your environment.” — Hunter S. Thompson

I’ve been writing for years about how renewable energy is “an issue we can all rally around” that shouldn’t involve partisan politics.

In an ideal world that would hold true. But after seeing the relentless campaign waged by a small-but-powerful group of belligerents determined to marginalize the industry, my opinion changed in 2011.

That shouldn’t stop us from trying to bring this issue above politics. But we’re in a fiercely partisan election year. And after witnessing the successful political campaign waged to raise doubts about climate science — thus creating an army of conservative presidential hopefuls who see talking about human-caused global warming as a political death sentence — we should all be on high alert.

Let’s face it: The clean energy industry isn’t going to match the tens of millions of dollars being poured into anti-clean energy propaganda by the Koch brothers or the latest fossil-fuel PR campaign from the American Petroleum Institute. By the time clean energy interests can actually match that level of spending, there probably won’t be the same need to guard against the constant barrage of baseball bats swinging for the knees of anyone who cares about moving this sector forward to address climate change.

To make push back more difficult, Washington-based advocacy organizations don’t have any interest in getting into fisticuffs. They risk losing support if they lash out too much, so they hang back and try to make friends with as many people possible. This is understandable for trying to craft policy. However, it also means they don’t have a very big dog in the political fight — a fight they’ve been reluctantly dragged into over the last six months.

A lot of people working in clean energy on the ground level feel the same way. Who wants to get dragged into a bar-room brawl started by a bunch of jabbering political drunkards who have no idea what they’re talking about? It’s best just to put their heads down, do their job, and hope they can ride through the bad vibes.

But that’s just not going to work in 2012.  Waiting for things to blow over isn’t going to be an adequate response. If you care about clean energy issues and actually want to make an impact on the dialogue in 2012, you’ve got to get involved.

Here’s what I mean.

Read more

by Sarah Laskow, reposted from Grist

Last summer, wildfires sped by drought turned large chunks of Texas into a moonscape. Nationally, 2011 saw the third worst wildfire season in the United States since 1960: More than 8.7 million acres of land burned.

It’s the job of congressional staffers working on energy and natural resources issues to know facts like this. But some of them have a more urgent and perverse interest in this particular statistic: they’re participants in a macabre annual office pool in which they try to predict how many acres of U.S. land will burn in wildfires.

Frank Gladics, a professional staffer on the Republican side of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, runs the contest. On Tuesday he sent out 2011’s results in an email that was perhaps forwarded a little too widely. (Grist managed to obtain a copy, after all.) Participants in 2011 ranged from lowly legislative aides to powerful staffers, like Bruce Evans, the Republican staff director for the Senate Appropriations Committee. The entrants Grist identified all worked on the Senate side of the Hill.

A morbid version of a jellybean-counting contest, the pool asks staffers to guess the number of acres that will burn each year; guesses that exceed the actual number, as reported in the National Interagency Fire Center Situation Report (PDF), are disqualified.

At best, this little stunt could be excused as gallows humor — a peculiar inside-the-Beltway bonding ritual for disaster wonks. Since wildfires level people’s homes, imperil both residents and firefighters, and serve as a barometer for climate-change-driven havoc, the annual game might also simply be tone-deaf, tasteless, and heartless.

Read more

It’s been a strange winter, thanks to climate change. While many cities on the mainland U.S. have experienced record-high temperatures, Alaska has braced an unusual barrage of snowfall — so much that the towns can hardly handle the snowy load.

The National Guard estimates more than 18 feet of snow has fallen the past few weeks, and the drifts can measure 12 to 14 feet high. The Associated Press reports:

“It’s a lot of snow. I’ve lived here 33 years and this is the most snow I’ve ever seen,” she said by phone. “The thing I’m impressed most with is we haven’t had any injuries. Maybe a few back strains from all of the shoveling. But we have a very, very efficient, professional emergency staff here.” [...]

The town issued a disaster proclamation last week after three weeks of relentless snow overwhelmed local crews working around the clock and filled snow dump sites.

“We had no alternative but to declare an emergency,” Cordova Mayor Jim Kallander said. “It became a life-safety issue.”

While Cordova, Alaska is familiar with snow, the snow dump fueled by climate change has immobilized the city. Thankfully there have been no injuries but like Cordova resident Wendy Rainney told the AP, “This is more quantity than can be handled.”

A years-long disagreement between a California power company and the federal government has delayed renewable energy projects intended to help provide power to facilities in California’s national parks and forests. The Los Angeles Times reports that federal agencies have spent three years trying to work out an agreement with Southern California Edison (SCE) to connect the project with the state’s electrical grid:

The apparent stumbling block involves contract restrictions imposed by federal law, but utilities elsewhere in California have signed similar agreements with the agencies with few problems or delays.

“There’s 24-plus systems in the Southern California Edison area that have been installed in the last three years that we have not been able to negotiate an interconnection agreement on,” said Jack Williams, who retired this month as the National Park Service’s Oakland-based regional facilities manager. [...]

The impasse has hindered the parks’ ability to meet renewable energy goals at a time when federal agencies are rushing to comply with orders to reduce carbon footprints. Equally troubling, officials say, is the financial fallout: a projected saving of tens of thousands of dollars from utility bills hasn’t been realized during the two years the park service and forest service have been negotiating with Edison.

Millions of dollars have been invested in renewable energy projects, like an $800,000 solar project at Death Valley National Park, that remain used while the parks instead continue to buy Energy from SCE. Parks officials at Death Valley told the LA Times that they hoped the project would cut an estimated $31,828 from an annual electric bill of $45,724, a 70 percent drop in energy cost. “It is disappointing to see this big investment sitting idle when we could easily flip the switch and produce benefits,” said park superintendent Woody Smeck.

As emerging clean technology companies reach stages of growth that require enormous amounts of deployment capital, investment figures for 2011 reflect that market dynamic.

Last year, global corporate and venture capital investments in cleantech grew 13% over 2010, reaching almost $9 billion, according to preliminary figures released from the Cleantech Group. Most of those investments are going to companies that have already picked up one or more rounds of funding, with 85% of dollars flowing into Series B rounds or later.

The most stunning increase in activity last year was in mergers and acquisitions, which grew by 154% in 2011. Because it’s often more attractive for cleantech companies to merge with a mature corporate parent rather than go public, the amount of exits in M&A have shot up dramatically.

In North America, private venture and corporate investments grew 30% over 2010, in spite of the political push to weave a narrative that clean energy is a “failure.” These figures once again show the stark disparity between out-of-touch Washington, DC political circles and the investment community, which still sees cleantech as a highly-important sector.

Solar lead the way in 2011, with $1.8 billion in venture investments. That’s about 20% of total venture investments world-wide last year. Just behind solar were efficiency and transportation:

Read more

Last week Climate Progress reported on the loss of interest in the story of the century by the major print media — see Silence of the Lambs 2: Media Herd’s Coverage of Climate Change Drops Sharply — Again.

Robert Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University in Philadelphia, put together similarly stunning data on the coverage in the past 15 years by NBC, ABC, and CBS on the night news.

Brulle explains in an email what he has to say on what happened and why:

Read more

Rick Santorum has spent his career advocating for the coal industry, a record he admitted he is proud of at a New Hampshire debate this weekend: “I contacted a local coal company from my area who — and I asked — I said, look, I want to join you in that fight. I want to work together with you,” he said. “I want to help you in any way I can to make sure we defeat cap-and-trade. And so I engaged in that battle. And I’m very proud to have engaged in that battle.”

It’s just one of many anti-environment statements Santorum has made during his few weeks in the election limelight. Santorum, who calls climate change “junk science,” defended those views at a Jan. 4 New Hampshire town hall meeting.

At the town hall, Santorum argued there is no credibility to the 97 percent of scientists who say man-made climate change is real, because there may be complicated factors impacting the environment. Based on that logic, Santorum calls climate science a left conspiracy making “this one particular factor, carbon dioxide, is in fact that tip of the tail that wags the entire dog.”

He also argues that even if he agreed — completely hypothetically — there have been no proposed solutions doing “anything to solve the problem.” Higher fuel economy standards, a cross-state air pollution control, and a global agreement on eventually cutting emissions clearly do not register under Santorum’s “solutions” category.

Watch his remarks:

 

by Jessica Goad, cross-posted from ThinkProgress Green

Today, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is scheduled to release a final determination to withdraw 1 million acres around the Grand Canyon from new mining claims for 20 years.

The Center for American Progress’ Public Lands Project praised the announcement, noting that it will protect access for all American families to enjoy one of this country’s greatest treasures, help provide more recreation and outdoor jobs in the conservation economy, and preserve a crucial water supply for much of the southwest.

To respond to the inevitable attacks from enemies of conservation in Congress, we outline the top five winners and losers of the decision:

Read more

by George Black, reposted from OnEarth Magazine

It was New York Times columnist Tom Friedman who made Bangalore famous. This city of seven million is the Silicon Valley of India, its technology parks and outsourcing services the driving force behind the country’s remarkable recent boom. For Friedman, Bangalore was the key to understanding the new global economy, and he came up with a snappy catchphrase to describe it, which in turn became the title of a best-selling book: The World is Flat. In this flat new world, India’s “knowledge economy” would rescue millions from rural poverty and usher them into a world of eight percent growth rates and abundant clean energy.

I came to Bangalore last month in search of this new energy economy, whose success or failure will be critical in determining the fate of the planet. But what I found was very different from what Friedman had in mind. In many ways it was more exciting; but it was also much more challenging. There’s no doubting India’s sincerity about shifting, over time, to a low-carbon future, but the vision of that future that I found in Bangalore will demand a radical change in the mindset of the government and of those who have done most to create Friedman’s Flat World.

Arriving here, as I did, from the teeming chaos of Uttar Pradesh, one of India’s most impoverished states, is an extreme form of culture shock. From the gleaming airport, my cab whisked me into the city along a divided highway (soon to be an expressway), flanked by tall concrete pillars (soon to be the metro to the airport). There was hardly a rickshaw or a sari in sight. Instead there were giant billboards advertising financial services, skiing vacations in Switzerland, and luxury prestige residences with golf course views. Were we really in India?

Read more

By Jessica Goad, manager of research and outreach, Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Today, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is scheduled to release a final determination to withdraw 1 million acres around the Grand Canyon from new mining claims for 20 years.

The Center for American Progress’ Public Lands Project praised the announcement, noting that it will protect access for all American families to enjoy one of this country’s greatest treasures, help provide more recreation and outdoor jobs in the conservation economy, and preserve a crucial water supply for much of the southwest.

To respond to the inevitable attacks from enemies of conservation in Congress, we outline the top five winners and losers of the decision:

WINNERS

1. The 25 million people who get their drinking water from the Colorado River
The Colorado River is the lifeblood for residents of the southwest. It is one of the most important rivers in the nation, providing drinking water to 25 million Americans. Uranium mining could contaminate this precious water source, the legacy of which is in the water contamination across Arizona and the southwest and is felt most acutely by Native American tribes. Water authorities in Arizona, California, and Nevada have stated that “federal agencies with oversight over mineral exploration and mining operations in the Lower Colorado River Basin must use their authority to prevent any potential for deterioration of this critical water supply for millions of people.”

2. American businesses
The outdoor recreation industry thrives on Americans’ ability to get outside. In Arizona alone, the outdoor recreation economy annually supports 82,000 jobs, generates almost $350 million in state tax revenue, and stimulates about $5 billion in retail sales and services. Businesses like rafting companies, outfitters, and gear manufacturers all benefit tremendously from the Grand Canyon’s unpolluted water, air, and landscapes. As Black Diamond Equipment CEO Peter Metcalf has stated, “The outdoor industry depends on public land so its consumers have a place to recreate using the products it sells.”

3. Arizona workers
Tourists spending money in and around the Grand Canyon create jobs. Headwaters Economics found that Grand Canyon National Park supported over 6,000 jobs in 2009 and those tourists spent more than $400 million. Arizonans feel the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of this spending in places like Tusayan and Flagstaff, but also more broadly through hotels, flights, rental cars, and other expenditures. As Sherry Henry, director of the Arizona Office of Tourism said, “No other Arizona industry produces the same economic impact to the Grand Canyon State than our travel and tourism industry.”

4. Sportsmen
Hunters and anglers have been some of the most outspoken proponents of protecting the Grand Canyon from the industrialization that mining would bring. A letter from nine sportsmen groups in July 2011 noted that “Uranium mining near Grand Canyon National Park is wholly unacceptable given the best science available and the potential impacts.” The Arizona Game and Fish Commission has endorsed the mineral withdrawal. With these 1 million acres protected from new mining claims, sportsmen will not lose access to this prime fish and wildlife habitat.

5. American families
The Grand Canyon is one of America’s most popular destinations. Almost 5 million people visit every year to take part in camping, hiking below the rim, viewing the sights from the window of a lodge, or otherwise taking in the canyon’s natural magnificence. By stopping excess uranium mining on 1 million acres, all Americans and future generations will have an opportunity to visit the Grand Canyon in its untarnished state.

LOSERS

1. International atomic interests
A number of different mining companies have expressed interest in the uranium deposits around the Grand Canyon, many of which are foreign or multinational. Examples are Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear agency; Denison Mining, partially owned by Korea’s state-owned electric utility; and Vane Minerals, a British company.

2. Reps. Jeff Flake, Paul Gosar, Trent Franks
Reps. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), and Trent Franks (R-AZ) have taken the lead in relentlessly attempting to block Secretary Salazar’s temporary withdrawals and forcing the administration to open the Grand Canyon area to industrial development. Flake’s effort over the summer to attach a policy rider on a budget bill to tie the Interior Department’s hands was dubbed “the Flake earmark.” Flake has already received $12,000 in campaign contributions from mining interests for his 2012 U.S. Senate campaign.

3. National Mining Association
The National Mining Association is one of the largest natural resources trade and lobbying groups in the nation. In 2011 it spent $3,580,266 lobbying Congress on various issues, and its non-coal-focused PAC has already spent $78,000 in campaign contributions for the 2012 cycle ($70,500 of which went to Republicans). A spokesman from the group in June stated that Secretary Salazar’s 6-month withdrawal “sets a troublesome precedent.”

4. Scientist Karen Wenrich
Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee called a hearing in November 2011 to continue to push for uranium mining around the Grand Canyon. But it was revealed at the hearing by Grand Canyon champion Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) that the scientist whom they called to testify that there would be little impact from uranium mining on the Colorado River stood to make $225,000 from it. Securities and Exchange Commission filings show that Karen Wenrich, a retired United States Geological Survey scientist, entered into a deal to sell 61 uranium claims only if the mineral withdrawal did not go through.

5. Companies seeking to exploit the public’s treasures for corporate profits
Under the 1872 Mining Law, mining companies are not required to pay royalties to the public for the mineral resources that they extract. Not only are taxpayers not properly compensated for their natural resources, but they are frequently left to foot the bill for environmental cleanup. Congress must pass legislation such as Rep. Ed Markey’s H.R. 3446 to solve this problem. However, Secretary Salazar’s withdrawal will stop additional companies from profiting off this antiquated system while endangering a national treasure.

Other stories below: Fight Against EPA Orders Heads to Supreme Court; 600,000 homes damaged by floods, freezing and droughts in Mexico in 2011

Scientists long puzzled by the rapid decline in millions of Canadian boreal ducks since the 1970s think they may finally have the cause: global warming.

“Because of climate change, the ducks don’t have the food that they need when they need it,” Stuart Slattery, a research scientist with Ducks Unlimited Canada, told CBC News on Friday.

Slattery and a team of scientists from the University of British Columbia, the University of Saskatchewan and Environment Canada have long been trying to solve a mystery in Canada’s boreal forests: why have two duck species, the scaup and scoter, dropped so dramatically in numbers — by 40 per cent and 60 per cent, respectively — in just three decades?

The scaup population, for instance, plunged from six million to 3½ million.

Read more