If we’re going to take control of our energy future and can start avoiding these annual gas price spikes that happen every year — when the economy starts getting better, world demand starts increasing, turmoil in the Middle East or some other parts of the world — if we’re going to avoid being at the mercy of these world events, we’ve got to have a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy.  Yes, oil and gas, but also wind and solar and nuclear and biofuels, and more.

President Obama gave a speech at the University of Miami on Thursday discussing his energy plan — assuming that one can use the word “plan” to describe a strategy devoid of any judgment. Obviously, all-of-the-above = more of everything = more fossil fuels = Hell and High Water.

The president has come a long way from his 2008 declaration that this is “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Now it’s more like “Après nous, le Déluge” (see “JPL bombshell: Polar ice sheet mass loss is speeding up, on pace for 1 foot sea level rise by 2050“).

Just a year ago, “all-of-the-above” was actually a standard Republican talking point, so much so that Democrats routinely mocked it (see Markey slams oil-above-all” approach). It is certainly true that when the president says it, he means it, whereas the Republicans merely say it and then bitterly oppose all of the clean energy programs that Democrats put on the table.  I’m not sure future generations will notice the difference.

Obama’s all-of-the-above energy speech took a none-of-the-above approach to environmental problems: It ignored them all, including the most important of them all, global warming.

Obama is currently in the midst of a failed presidency from a historical perspective because of his abandonment of the climate issue, which is the only issue future generations are going to care about if we don’t act now, as I’ve said many times.

Obama will probably get only one serious shot at redemption, the grand bargain on tax and the deficit at the end of this year (see “Bipartisan Support Grows for Carbon Price as Part of Debt Deal“).  Speeches like this provide no evidence whatsoever that Obama even understands the stakes anymore.

Here are two other places in the speech where he repeats his new slogan:

Read more

Tomorrow, the D.C. Court of Appeals will hear arguments from carbon polluters and their political allies that the EPA scientific endangerment finding for greenhouse pollution should be overturned. This case — brought by the state of Virginia, the industry front-group Coalition for Responsible Regulation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Tea Party-industry front Southeastern Legal Foundation — is based on the right-wing myth that global warming is a hoax. Holland & Hart attorney Paul Phillips, representing the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, told InsideClimate News that “man-made climate change is not certain,” according to “a compelling amount of science and facts out there”:

There’s a compelling amount of science and facts out there that suggest man-made climate change is not certain. EPA needs to accurately and honestly those certainties as well as the uncertainties.

The Coalition for Responsible Regulation, established in 2009, has not disclosed who its member companies are.

The EPA endangerment finding, Inside Climate News notes, “is based on more than 100 published scientific studies and peer-reviewed syntheses of climate change research” by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program/U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Essentially every scientific society in the world — and every agency of the United States government — recognizes that the threat of man-made global warming is a fact. As the National Academy of Sciences wrote in 2010, man-made global warming is a “settled fact“:

From a philosophical perspective, science never proves anything—in the manner that mathematics or other formal logical systems prove things—because science is fundamentally based on observations.

Any scientific theory is thus, in principle, subject to being refined or overturned by new observations.

In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.

Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

Since 2010, the science attributing the unequivocal warming of the planet to fossil-fuel pollution has grown even stronger. It’s now considered “highly likely” that all of the observed warming since 1950 is manmade (and “extremely likely” that most of the warming is manmade).

Call it the reverse Midas touch. Everything homo sapiens touches turns to acid.

A study led by the U.S. Geological Survey finds, “Human use of Earth’s natural resources is making the air, oceans, freshwaters, and soils more acidic.”  The USGS news release explains:

This comprehensive review, the first on this topic to date, found the mining and burning of coal, the mining and smelting of metal ores, and the use of nitrogen fertilizer are the major causes of chemical oxidation processes that generate acid in the Earth-surface environment.

These widespread activities have increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, increasing the acidity of oceans; produced acid rain that has increased the acidity of freshwater bodies and soils; produced drainage from mines that has increased the acidity of freshwater streams and groundwater; and added nitrogen to crop lands that has increased the acidity of soils.

Previous studies have linked increased acidity in oceans to damage to ocean food webs, while increased acidity in soils has the potential to affect their ability to sustain crop growth.

In short, global acidification is one more threat to global food security, which is already under grave threat by climate change, our idiotic biofuels policies, population growth and demographic changes (see Oxfam Predicts Climate Change will Help Double Food Prices by 2030: “We Are Turning Abundance into Scarcity”).

Here’s more background on the study and its findings:

Read more

by Chris Mooney, reposted from DeSmogBlog

James Inhofe, Republican Senator from Oklahoma, has a new book out. It is entitled The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.

I have not read it yet. So I cannot say much about its contents, but I can say this: The title suggests that Inhofe, like Rick Santorum, is endorsing the global warming conspiracy theory. Indeed, where Santorum only muttered the word “hoax” without a great deal of elaboration, it looks like Inhofe is going to put some real meat onto those paranoid bones.

Let me once again reiterate why the global warming conspiracy theory is, well, just plain ridiculous.

To believe that global warming is a “hoax,” or that there is a “conspiracy,” you must believe in coordinated action on the part of scientists, environmental ministers, politicians, and NGOs around the world. It won’t do just to situate the hoax in the United States and its own scientific and NGO community, because the idea of human-caused global warming is endorsed by scientists, and scientific academies, around the globe.

Any one of these could blow the whistle on the so-called “hoax.” That this has not happened either means there is no hoax, or that the degree of conspiracy and collusion—among people who are notoriously individualistic and non-conformist, by the way—is mindboggling. We’re talking about some serious cat-herding going on.

Read more

The most serious threat to U.S. national security and economic health today is not not al Qaeda or a nuclear Iran or the price of gasoline.

No, at the moment the gravest threat is our own inability to take action on fundamental threats, like global warming. The jeopardy we are in is doubled by a Congress that is either incapable of or unwilling to act.

Congress’s failures are acts of commission as well as omission. A significant number of Senators and House members are trying to get rid of policies and tools that past Congresses put in place to protect us. Some of the Republican candidates for president are complicit.

Consider what Congress is doing, or not doing, about oil prices, economic stability, climate change, and our military effectiveness.

Read more

How exactly does one break a deeply embedded myth? We often believe that bombarding people with facts and figures is the best way to combat misinformation. But busting myths is not just about providing more data — it’s about presenting the data in a way that people will actually process it.

John Cook, founder of the popular climate website Skeptical Science, likes to think about the way people think.

As a climate communications fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, Cook devotes his time to understanding how the booby traps and backfire effects within the human mind allow us to embrace myths, even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In this podcast, we’ll have a lengthy discussion with Cook about how to counter the backfire effects within the brain. He’ll discuss his recent “Debunking Handbook,” which he co-authored with the cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowski, and apply his research to the manufactured “debate” over climate change:

“Because there is such an organized disinformation campaign, we need to be as scientific and evidence based as we can in our response. Which means take advantage of all this psychological research and that will help us form the most effective responses we can in trying to reduce the influence of disinformation.”

“For a long time, scientists have been operating under the information deficit model, saying that if we could just get more information to people, then that will solve the climate problem…but there’s more to it than that. We need to understand how people think, how they process information, so when we do try to reduce the effect of disinformation — and we have to do that — then we can do it more effectively.”

The Climate Progress podcast is now on iTunes. If you want to get automatic updates when we post new shows, you can subscribe to our feed through iTunes. For manual updates, check out our RSS feed.

And if you want to read about the concepts we discuss in this show, check out the below posts on the various backfire effects:

• The Debunking Handbook Part 1: The First Myth About Debunking
• The Debunking Handbook, Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
• The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
• The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
• The Debunking Handbook Part 5: Filling the Gap With an Alternative Explanation

 

Homeowners associations are notoriously resistant to solar, often banning roof-top installations that conflict with their aesthetic values. But what if you could install an invisible solar system on your home that no one knows is there?

Last week, researchers announced they had produced the largest see-through organic solar module to date — a 170 square centimeter functioning module that is 14 times larger than the last iteration. The technology was produced through a collaboration with researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the organic solar company New Energy Technologies.

Organic solar technologies — often called plastic solar — utilize conductive polymers that allow for flexible cells and modules. Researchers are applying these unique polymers onto a see-through substrate that can be applied to glass:

Once electricity-generating polymers are applied to a material surface, the resultant effect is the production of an OPV cell. The prospect of SolarWindow™ products generating electricity on see-through glass is made possible by way of the unique architecture associated with this fabrication of the OPV device.

The technology was initially produced in a laboratory at the University of South Florida.

Research like this coming out of our nation’s laboratories is exciting. But we need to be extraordinarily cautious when evaluating the commercial viability of this technology.

Read more

Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN), on Fox News Sunday yesterday, echoed comments made last week by Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, claiming that rising gas prices were an intentional part of Obama administration policy.

Daniels told Chris Wallace:

Let’s give the president credit for one domestic policy that worked. He wanted higher gas prices and he got ‘em. He said it. Secretary [Steven] Chu said $8, about what they pay in Europe, would be great. Secretary [Ken] Salazar said it could go $10 and [he] still wouldn’t be for allowing drilling in the places where we know there’s an awful lot of domestic production. And so, they have gotten the doubling of gas prices — perhaps worse, is a conscious policy of this administration. Maybe the one thing they set out to do and actually accomplished.”

Watch the exchange:

Daniels did not mention that in 2010, he wanted higher gas prices himself. That year, the Center for American Progress praised Daniels for distinguishing himself from Republican fealty to big oil by supporting a tax on imported oil. The tax would have increased gasoline prices in order to increase American energy security.

Though Wallace noted that U.S. dependence on foreign oil is the lowest in 16 years, Daniels dismissed this as “no thanks to them,” crediting only the policies of the George W. Bush administration and blasting President Barack Obama for wanting “environmental regulations” that could put refiners out of business and stop the construction of new ones.

ThinkProgress researchers were unable to find any evidence that Obama has ever called for higher gas prices, although he did say in one 2008 interview that, given a choice, he would prefer a slow gas price increase to a fast one. The accusations Daniels made about Chu and Salazar involve incidents from before they were members of the administration. Chu talked in September 2008 about a gradual, 15-year increase in the gas tax to encourage efficiency and keep money in America — his idea was rejected by President Obama. Salazar never said what Daniels claimed — as a senator in 2008, Salazar was blocking a procedural gimmick by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who wanted to use gas prices to trigger unrestricted offshore drilling everywhere in the United States. Daniels’ claims totally ignored the administration’s actions and the president’s “all-of-the-above” energy plan to fight gas price spikes and reduce dependence on oil.

Daniels’ concern for only energy and construction companies, instead of the planet, is nothing new. As ThinkProgress Green reported last month, Daniels used his state taxpayer-funding to lobby for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline — even though the proposed pipeline would not run through Indiana. Even the state-paid lobbyist was unable to explain the connection. According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, Daniels received about $1.3 million in campaign contributions from the construction sector and more than $900,000 from the energy and natural resources industries over his career.

We don’t get to rest in a fight that we’re still not winning

by Bill McKibben, reposted from HuffPost

There were two scientific studies this week that set the ongoing Keystone pipeline battle in sharp relief.

One was a reminder of just how crucial this fight is. A secret report delivered to the Canadian government’s chief bureaucrat showed that changes in tar sands mining methods, which the industry claimed reduced the amount of carbon emissions, were actually “three times as emissions intensive” and that damage to the environment would be both “significant” and “irreversible.”

That’s one reason the EU moved closer last week to preventing the import of tarsands oil to Europe, and it helps explain why the White House continued to stand strong against Congressional efforts to force a permit for Keystone — as the president’s press secretary pointed out (in a pointed tweet) the administration’s new fuel efficiency standards for cars would save more oil than the pipeline could deliver in 45 years.

But the second study made clear to tars sands opponents — if it hadn’t been already — that this was only one battle in a much larger fight. A new study from a pair of British Columbia scientists shows that there’s a lot of carbon in the tarsands — but a lot more yet in the planet’s coal deposits.

If you burned all the tar sands we know about now, you’d raise the planet’s temperature more than half a degree — i.e., half again as much as the global warming we’ve already seen, which has been enough to make the seas 30% more acid and cut Arctic sea ice 40%. But if you burned all the coal we know about it, the temperature would go up 15 degrees.

[JR: For more on that study, see "Confusing Climate Study Actually Makes Strong Case Against Tar Sands — If We Want To Avoid Catastrophic Global Warming."]

Read more

Other stories below: Much to worry about amid winter’s early blooms; Keystone fight unites Tea Partiers with environmentalists

EPA Air Rules Head to Court

Republicans on the campaign trail have long bashed President Barack Obama’s environmental regulations. This week the battle moves to the courtroom, where several industries and GOP lawmakers are trying to overturn the administration’s rules for reducing greenhouse gases.

Industry groups, including those representing chemical, energy, farming and mining interests, have brought several challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s first-ever rules limiting carbon-dioxide emissions.

In the lead case, the plaintiffs are challenging the EPA’s finding that such greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. That finding formed the basis for agency rules that imposed greenhouse-gas-emissions standards on cars beginning with the 2012 model year and set initial rules on permits for power plants and factories.

Beginning Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear two days of arguments on that case and three others involving challenges to those rules. The court often is considered the second most influential in the U.S. after the Supreme Court.

Read more