Killer tornadoes are marking the transition from a freakishly warm winter into yet another freakishly dangerous spring. The multi-billion-dollar drought in Texas and Oklahoma is expected to continue into the indefinite future. Planting seasons, maple syrup seasons, and cherry blossom festivals are starting at weirder and weirder times. Torrential rains and record heat waves are becoming commonplace. Migrating birds are straying from their normal path, insect pests are multiplying, and trees are dying.

Americans are starting to trust the evidence of their own senses about the growing impacts of climate change, instead of the barrage of misinformation and confusion that comes from media sources. A new poll from the Brookings Institution shows that a strong majority of the American public agree that there is “solid evidence that average temperatures on earth have been getting warmer over the past four decades,” and “about half of Americans now point to observations of temperature changes and weather as the main reasons they believe global warming is taking place”:

A sampling of the open-ended comments provided by survey respondents helps demonstrate the role that weather plays in shaping individual views on global warming. A male senior citizen from Illinois, who feels that there is solid evidence of global warming, said that the primary reason that led him to this conclusion was “winters just aren’t as cold as they were in the past.” Similarly, a middle-aged woman in Florida attributed her position on global warming primarily to her observations that “this time of year is warmer than it is expected to be.” A young man in Texas identified the primary reason for his view that the Earth is warming to “temperatures last summer that were awful,” while another young Texan stated that the “droughts this past summer” were the primary reason that she believed temperatures on earth were increasing. In these cases and many others Americans turn first to the weather they experience as the key reason for their acceptance of global warming.

This intuitive, natural approach tying the long-term warming of the entire planet by fossil-fuel pollution to local observations is backed by the science. Scientific research has determined that the continental United States is growing hotter in every state, with greater extremes in precipitation. The warming of the oceans and atmosphere has fueled the freak droughts and heat waves that the poll respondents cited. In almost every measure, the weather of the United States has diverged perceptibly from the 20th-century norm — in line with scientific projections of the consequences of global warming pollution.

In 1988, NASA climate scientist James Hansen predicted that the local changes in temperature caused by global warming pollution would become apparent in everyday life by the 21st century. That prediction has now come to pass — despite billions of dollars spent by polluters to argue against the evidence of people’s own senses.

In short, our weather has been poisoned by the fossil fuel industry, and every day more and more Americans know it, just by going outside.

The world’s oceans may be turning acidic faster today from human carbon emissions than they did during four major extinctions in the last 300 million years, when natural pulses of carbon sent global temperatures soaring, says a new study in Science. The study is the first of its kind to survey the geologic record for evidence of ocean acidification over this vast time period.

“What we’re doing today really stands out,” said lead author Bärbel Hönisch, a paleoceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “We know that life during past ocean acidification events was not wiped out—new species evolved to replace those that died off. But if industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care about—coral reefs, oysters, salmon.”

That’s the news release from a major 21-author Science paper, “The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification” (subs. req’d).

We knew from a 2010 Nature Geoscience study that the oceans are now acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred. But this study looked back over 300 million and found that “the unprecedented rapidity of CO₂ release currently taking place” has put marine life at risk in a frighteningly unique way:

… the current rate of (mainly fossil fuel) CO₂ release stands out as capable of driving a combination and magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in at least the last ~300 My of Earth history, raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change.

That is to say, it’s not just that acidifying oceans spell marine biological meltdown “by end of century” as a 2010 Geological Society study put it. We are also warming the ocean and decreasing dissolved oxygen concentration. That is a recipe for mass extinction. A 2009 Nature Geoscience study found that ocean dead zones “devoid of fish and seafood” are poised to expand and “remain for thousands of years.“

And remember, we just learned from a 2012 new Nature Climate Change study that carbon dioxide is “driving fish crazy” and threatening their survival.

Here’s more on the new study:

Read more

Relentless attacks on the Chevy Volt from Rush Limbaugh and Republican politicians have taken their toll, as General Motors has announced a five-week suspension in production of the range-extended electric car. Conservative enemies of clean energy and the Obama administration seized on isolated reports Volts with battery fires, calling the cars “Obama-mandated death traps.” Limbaugh even said GM was a “corporation that’s trying to kill its customers.”

These conspiracy-tinged partisan attacks have now cost American jobs, with 1300 workers temporarily laid off in the face of lower than expected demand for the innovative cars, even as gas prices rise. In January, GM CEO Dan Akerson bemoaned the effect of the barrage of ideological criticism on the popularity of the 37 – 93 mpg car:

We did not design the Volt to become a political punching bag and that’s what it’s become.

Oh, and about those attacks? After an investigation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determined that the Volt is just as safe as any gasoline-powered vehicle on the road.

At the Republic Report, Lee Fang details how the Koch Industries petrochemical empire is involved in the boom in natural gas hydrofracturing. The right-wing Koch brothers have developed a vertical empire designed to extract wealth from every point in the hydrocarbon lifecycle. A small fraction of their profits is funneled into corrupting our political system, in order to prevent government from protecting society against the costs of the waste products.

The October 2011 issue of Discovery, the in-house Koch Industries newsletter, explains how the Koch Industries empire is profiting from the “really exciting” fracking boom:

– 1. Koch Pipeline is partnering with NuStar Energy to develop a dormant pipeline from Pettus, TX to refineries in Corpus Christi. The pipeline will transport natural gas from fracking sites in southern Texas. Koch Pipeline is a Koch Industries subsidiary.

– 2. Flint Hills Resources recently purchased a small craft pier and wharf in Ingleside, TX to store shipments of natural gas from fracking operations in the Eagle Ford shale formation. Flint Hills Resources is a Koch Industries subsidiary.

– 3. Koch Supply & Trading, a Koch Industries company that deals with commodity trading and financial products, is “already trading Eagle Ford crude” to help supply Koch companies and other customers, according to a Koch Industries newsletter.

– 4. Koch Chemical Technology Group is designing a processing facility near Yoakum, TX to help process natural gas fracked in southern Texas. Koch Chemical is a subsidiary of Koch Industries.

– 5. John Zink, a Koch Industries company, is providing flares for a natural gas processing plant in Helena to service the fracking industry.

– 6. Georgia Pacific produces resins used for chemicals used to prop open micro-fractures, an important process for fracking to occur. GP is a Koch Industries subsidiary.

– 7. Koch Fertilizer, a Koch Industries company, has tapped into increased natural gas production from fracking to develop fertilizer.

From Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney to the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity, the Koch political network has been furiously attempting to block any oversight or regulation of the pollution and risks associated with fracking, no matter the danger to the American public.

by Rick Piltz, reposted from Climate Science Watch

In a victory for university scholars, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled today that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli does not have the authority to demand the release of email and other documents related to the work of former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann. Cuccinelli’s global warming denial machine fishing expedition had been criticized even by climate ‘skeptics’ who are no friends of Prof. Mann.  It raised the chilling question of whether the university could protect researchers’ ability to privately and freely correspond with one another.

The Washington Post and Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch online reported.

The Court’s 26-page ruling is here (PDF).

The court’s ruling was on the question of Cuccinelli’s statutory jurisdiction vis-a-vis the university. From the Times-Dispatch:

The Virginia Supreme Court today sided with the University of Virginia in its fight against the state attorney general’s investigation of former U.Va. climate scientist Michael Mann.

The court upheld the Albemarle Circuit Court ruling setting aside Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s civil investigative demands for documents related to grants Mann receive to study global warming.

Cuccinell sought the information under the state’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.

But the high court ruled today that the university is not “a person” under the act, and the term “corporation” as used in the statute does not include state agencies such as public universities. …

“Certainly, I do think that it’s important for the university to be able to protect the privacy of its researchers and the ability of scientists to ask tough questions,” said Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy group. “This is a victory for science in Virginia.” …

Amen to that, Michael.

When the Cuccinelli inquisition was initiated two years ago, we wrote (Free the Cuccinelli 40: Virginia AG demands e-mails of Michael Mann and 39 other scientists):

Read more

Top oil economist: Pipeline would increase gasoline prices in the upper Midwest 5 to 10 cents a gallon.

Amidst the mind-numbing array of hollow political promises to lower U.S. gas prices, there’s one really important point everyone should know: the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, which supporters say will “bring down prices at the pump,” wouldn’t be built until 2014.

And that’s if everything went forward today without a hitch.

Keystone XL has become a political mantra for supporters of the carbon economy. But experts continue to warn that promises of cheaper gas prices are unfounded.

What would be the impact of opening up that giant pool of carbon and piping it through America’s heartland? “A few cents at the pump,” said Blake Eskew, senior vice president at the oil consulting firm Purvin & Gertz, Inc., speaking to the Washington Post this week.

Other analysts are far more pessimistic. In a Washington Post fact-checking column today on claims about Keystone XL and gas prices, oil economist Philip Verleger explained that the pipeline would actually raise prices in the Midwest by pulling more crude from refineries in the region down to the Gulf Coast:

There is a lively debate among oil-industry analysts about whether Keystone will impact gasoline prices in the Midwest. Philip K. Verleger, a noted oil economist, has argued that the pipeline would increase gasoline prices in the upper Midwest. He said yesterday that he stands by that estimate, figuring it would amount to between five and ten cents per gallon.

“Overall, the pipeline will have no impact on prices consumers pay.  None. The reason is that the products produced from the crude will be sold into the world market — exported — if prices fall below world levels,” he said in an email. “This means that consumers outside the Midwest will get no benefit from the line while consumers in the upper Midwest may pay more.”

Although some have disputed Verleger’s analysis of the hike in Midwestern gas prices, there are no analysts who believe building Keystone XL will have an impact on gas prices in the short-term — if at all in the long-term. The Washington Post fact checkers backed this up today:

We could not find any experts, even those referred to us by Upton’s staff, to say that the prospect of the pipeline being built in the future would somehow impact the price of gasoline today.

As gas prices continue to climb in the U.S., stoking fears about $5 a gallon fuel, supporters of Keystone XL will continue to hold up the project as a solution. But this is nothing more than a political talking point — a hollow promise that simply not grounded in reality.

Even TransCanada, the company building the pipeline, is careful not to claim the project will lower gas prices: “Prices are set on a global level,” writes the company in a fact sheet.

Yale economist William Nordhaus has eviscerated the 16 scientists who wrote a disinformation-filled Wall Street Journal piece in late January. Yes, three dozen climatologists already debunked the posers (see “Dentists Practicing Cardiology”), as did I.

But Nordhaus’s blunt piece — “Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong” – is worth reading because he is no climate hawk. You may recall his October article that found “Oil and Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Air Pollution Damages Larger Than Their Value Added.” It use an uber-low, uber-lame, uber-outdated “price” for CO2:

We use the social cost of carbon for the year 2000. This cost will rise over time as greenhouse gases accumulate and marginal damages increase. We assume that the central estimate of the social cost of carbon is $27 per ton of carbon (Nordhaus 2008b).

The actual social cost of carbon today is at least 5 times that price and more than 10 times that in the near future (or now, see here).  The International Energy Agency (IEA) noted back in 2008 that just to stabilize at 550 ppm (roughly 3°C or 5.4F warming), which would likely still be catastrophic for humanity, you’d need a price of “$90/tonne of CO2 in 2030,” which is to say $330 a metric ton of carbon.  You need a 2030 CO2 price of “$180/tonne in the 450 Policy Scenario” — $660 a metric ton of carbon.

So when a guy like Nordhaus slams disinformers hard, that’s a big deal. Let me excerpt his key rebuttals and then his economic analysis:

1. The first claim is that the planet is not warming….  The finding that global temperatures are rising over the last century-plus is one of the most robust findings of climate science and statistics.
2. A second argument is that warming is smaller than predicted by the models….  In reviewing the results, the IPCC report concluded: “No climate model using natural forcings [i.e., natural warming factors] alone has reproduced the observed global warming trend in the second half of the twentieth century.”
3. The sixteen scientists next attack the idea of CO2 as a pollutant. They write: “The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant.”… In short, the contention that CO2 is not a pollutant is a rhetorical device and is not supported by US law or by economic theory or studies.
4. The fourth contention by the sixteen scientists is that skeptical climate scientists are living under a reign of terror about their professional and personal livelihoods…. The idea that climate science and economics are being suppressed by a modern Lysenkoism is pure fiction.
5. A fifth argument is that mainstream climate scientists are benefiting from the clamor about climate change…. One of the worrisome features of the distortion of climate science is that the stakes are huge here—even larger than the economic stakes for keeping the cigarette industry alive. Tobacco sales in the United States today are under $100 billion. By contrast, expenditures on all energy goods and services are close to $1,000 billion. Restrictions on CO2 emissions large enough to bend downward the temperature curve from its current trajectory to a maximum of 2 or 3 degrees Centigrade would have large economic effects on many businesses. Scientists, citizens, and our leaders will need to be extremely vigilant to prevent pollution of the scientific process by the merchants of doubt.

Snap.

Nordhaus’s final point concerns himself and the 16 poser-dentists misrepresentation of his own work, where they claimed “economics does not support policies to slow climate change in the next half-century.” They wrote:

Read more

As American Families Pay 25 Cents More for a Gallon of Gas, Big Oil Earns $5 Billion More in Profits

By Richard W. Caperton, Jackie Weidman, Daniel J. Weiss

Oil prices, which averaged a near-record $103 per barrel in 2011, have risen steadily since the beginning of 2012. In tandem with oil prices, gasoline prices are also rising—from an average of $3.30 ending the week of January 2 to $3.59 last week. Higher gas prices mean that money is flowing out of Americans’ wallets and pocketbooks and straight into the coffers of Big Oil companies. This Center for American Progress analysis finds that each penny rise in the average quarterly (three months) price of a gallon of gas corresponds to a $200 million increase in quarterly profits of the big five oil companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell.

Since the beginning of the year, the price for gasoline increased 29 cents per gallon. If that average increase holds true through the end of March, it will translate to $5.8 billion in additional profits for the big five.

CAP analyzed the past four years of average quarterly gas prices and total profits for the five largest oil companies and, not surprisingly, oil company profits are closely linked to gas prices. While gas prices aren’t the only factors influencing profits, they are a significant indicator. What’s more, we can confidently predict how much money each penny increase in gas prices transfers from consumers to the big five oil companies.

Just this past January the typical household paid about $290.76 for gasoline, up by $25 over the same one-month time span in January 2011. It looks like households will face a similar increase in gasoline expenditures in February with gas prices on the rise even though demand is the lowest it’s been since 1997. This especially affects the 82 million households that spend 6 percent or more of their annual household budgets on gasoline.[1]

Read more

Former Sen. George Allen (R-VA), who is trying to regain the seat he lost in 2006, is making his support for pro-coal, oil, and energy corporation policies a huge part of his campaign. And a ThinkProgress Green analysis of his personal and campaign finance disclosure forms may show why.

In August, Allen submitted his required candidate financial disclosure report to the Secretary of the Senate. In it, he revealed:

–He owns between $108,009 and $370,000 in coal, oil, and other energy companies’ stock. The include holdings in Chevron Group, Devon Energy, Peabody Energy, General Electric, Praxair, Constellation Energy Group Inc., Nextera Energy Inc., Encana Corp., and Dominion Resources Inc.

–He received at least $15,000 in consulting and speaking fees from the dirty sector sector in the previous year. Those came in the form of a $5,000 speaker’s fee from the Ohio Coal Association and $5,000-or-larger consulting payments from both Alpha Natural Resources and the investment branch of Peabody Energy.

–He was paid $20,000 for his work as chairman of the American Energy Freedom Center, a pro-dirty energy group which engages in global warming denial. The organization is connected with the Exxon-Mobil Corporation-funded Institute for Energy Research.

Read the disclosure form (.PDF).

Since his first run for Congress in a 1991 special election, Allen has collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from energy-sector corporate PACs. This includes some of the worst polluters in the country: Koch Industries (at least $28,500), Dominion Resources Inc. (at least $20,000), Occidental Petroleum (at least $17,000), Southern Company (at least $13,500), ExxonMobil (at least $12,500), and Marathon Oil (at least $10,100).

So it’s no wonder that Allen’s running a hugely pro-energy sector campaign. He advocates for more offshore drilling, construction of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline which would bring no jobs to Virginia, and deregulation. His @georgeallenva Twitter feed contains a non-stop parade of complaints about “gasoline prices,” “costs of fuel,” and “energy prices.” One recent Allen tweet pledged “On day one I will introduce a bill to open VA’s coast for exploration for oil and natural gas.”

Allen attempts to convince voters that his pro-industry policies would somehow bring gas prices back to $1.84 — rather than simply increase profits for the energy companies he invests in and worked for. But domestic oil production is at its highest point in nearly a decade while prices continue to rise.

In his one term in the senate from 2001 to 2007, Allen amassed what the League of Conservation Voters called “one of the worst environmental records ever.” Should Virginia return him to the senate, it seems clear Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Energy would have his vote and his undivided attention.

by Jocelyn Fong, reposted from Media Matters

Other stories below: Mitt Romney turns to energy in North Dakota stop; Climate change could wreak havoc on maple syrup industry

Obama holds up chart showing U.S. dependence on foreign oil dropping from 60% in 2005 to 45% in 2011, during a speech in New Hampshire. [AFP/Getty Images]

Obama, chart in hand, presses his case on gas prices

Obama repeated his case, outlined in a speech last week, that there is “no silver bullet” to rising gas prices. He highlighted his administration’s effort to reduce dependence on foreign oil and boost development of alternative energy.

This week he introduced a new prop to illustrate his point. As Obama spoke, a chart popped up on television screens behind him. The graph showed U.S. dependence on foreign oil falling since 2005 — from 60% of net imports to 45% in 2011.

The White House handed out copies to the crowd. Obama told them to take it home — “it makes for a great conversation piece at parties.”

“Now, one reason our dependence on foreign oil is down is because of policies put in place by our administration and my predecessor’s administration. And whoever succeeds me will have to keep it up. This won’t be solved by one party or administration. It won’t be solved by slogans and phony rhetoric.”

Read more