The global climate-activist organization 350.org is “gearing up for a major new fight to end the billions of dollars in subsidies the fossil fuel industry receives each year.” In an online video, 350.org founder Bill McKibben reviews the accomplishments of the climate movement in the United States, including the non-violent civil disobedience at the White House that led to the rejection of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, and the challenges ahead:

The power of the fossil fuel industry over national politics is “a big part of what’s making this planet less habitable day by day,” McKibben says, as he asks people to “join the fight” against fossil-fuel subsidies.

You can help fight the denier attacks on Michael Mann by buying his book, reading it, and then reviewing it at Amazon.com.

The most vindicated climate scientist in America, Michael Mann, has published an excellent new book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. How much do the climate science disinformers want to discourage you from reading it? I’ve reported that the deniers immediately launched an attack on the book and on the positive reviews on Amazon.com.

Now Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal has decided that rather than just ignoring the book, they would have it ‘reviewed’ by their leading anti-science and anti-scientist editorial page writer, Anne Jolis.

I say “anti-science” because, as recently as Septmber, Jolis wrote an entire ‘opinion’ piece on “The Other Climate Theory:  Al Gore won’t hear it, but heavenly bodies might be driving long-term weather trends.” Yes, she was pushing the long-debunked “cosmic ray” theory of climate change based on a CERN paper — months after its lead author explained that the paper “actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step.” Multiple peer-reviewed papers make clear that cosmic rays aren’t driving significant climatic change.

I say “anti-scientist” because, as forest science expert Simon Lewis wrote here in a 2010 debunking of another one of Jolis’s masterpieces of misinformation:

I asked Peter Cox what he thought about the WSJ article. He was surprised that he was featured in a climate science bashing editorial. While his quotes were correctly transcribed Prof. Cox was not told that the article was about attacking climate science. The same journalist tried the same sleight-of-hand with me over a potential Amazongate article. So memo to scientists. If Anne Jolis of the WSJ contacts you, watch out, or you could find yourself being tricked into starring in an article about scientists not being open and honest.

It’s safe to say that if you ask Jolis to write review of a book on climate science, you know what you’re going to get. And, indeed, the review reveals that Jolis remains a one-trick pony.

Here she is with what I suppose she considers a devastating example of hypocrisy but which is an unintentional revelation of her own biases:

Read more

Report Looks at Five Major Health Threats From Flooding in a Warming World

A Union of Concerned Scientists news release

WASHINGTON (March 15, 2012)—Extreme precipitation and flooding, likely on the rise in a warming world, carry significant and often hidden health risks, according to a report, “After the Storm: The Hidden Health Risks of Flooding in a Warming World,” released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

“Damage from floods is typically measured in terms of lives lost and the cost of damage to buildings and infrastructure,” said Liz Perera, UCS public health analyst and one of the report’s co-authors.  “But what are often overlooked are the potentially costly public health impacts.”

The report calls attention to these impacts by listing the top five health risks of extreme precipitation and flooding:

1. Drowning while driving: Almost half of 2010 flood fatalities involved people who drowned while attempting to drive through floodwaters. Only 18 inches of water can lift a car or SUV; once buoyant, the water will easily push the vehicle sideway. Most vehicles then tend to roll over, trapping those inside.
2. Waterborne diseases contaminating drinking water: Extreme precipitation and flooding can sometimes overwhelm drinking water infrastructure and wells, which reduces or prevents water purification. Over half of all waterborne disease outbreaks in the United States occur in the aftermath of heavy rain.
3. Sewage back-up in plumbing or basements: Flooding can cause local sewage lines and septic tanks to overflow, sometimes resulting in sewage backing up into people’s residences.
4. Bacteria, sewage, and other contaminants in waterways: During flooding, untreated sewage, pesticides, and street contaminants (motor oil, dog excrement, etc.) can flow into local rivers, lakes, ponds, and even ocean beaches.
5. Mold and dangerous indoor air quality: Water intrusion anywhere in a building can cause toxic mold to grow in ceilings, walls, or insulation.

“Over half of all outbreaks of waterborne diseases in the U.S. occur in the aftermath of heavy rains,” said Perera.  “Health risks will likely increase as extreme rainfall events are projected to become more common in a warming world.”

Heavy rains can contaminate drinking and recreational water with sewage, petroleum products, pesticides, herbicides, and waste from farm animals, wildlife and pets. Floodwaters may contain more than 100 types of disease-causing bacteria, viruses and parasites.

“We think of waterborne illnesses as a problem in developing countries, but it’s a very real public health issue here in the U.S.,” said Dr. Marc Gorelick, division chief of pediatric emergency room medicine at Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee. “Climate change, because it likely causes heavier storms, could threaten our already vulnerable water supply and lead to more cases of gastrointestinal illness.”

Read more

by Harald Winkler, reposted from NRDC’s Switchboard

South African Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan announced in his budget speech that a carbon tax will be implemented in the next financial year that runs from 2013-2014.  The proposal is to implement the carbon tax at a fairly low level, and then define an increasing price path over time.  It is a cautious approach but this is finally an announcement that a carbon tax will be implemented, which is a major step for a developing country like South Africa.

[Note: South Africa’s annual carbon emissions were among the top 20 in the world, while their per capita emissions rank them much lower and emissions over time rank lower.  Their energy use predominantly comes from coal and four-fiths of carbon emissions are due to energy use and supply.]

While more details are expected sometime this month when the Treasury Department issues its next discussion document, some information on the potential details are available in the South African Budget Review (pg. 56).  The next document is expected to contain details on the exact design of the carbon price. A carbon tax of $16 per ton is expected (South African Rand 120 per ton of CO2e) in 2013, with annual increases of 10 per cent through 2019.

However, the effective level of the tax is not entirely clear at this point but it is expected that a portion of each sector’s carbon pollution will excluded from the price.  The Budget Review (pg. 196) outlines that all sectors will have 60% of their pollution excluded from the price. And some industries may get greater exclusions from a portion of the rate (i.e., having a lower effective rate).  Some energy-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) sectors—such as cement, iron & steel, and aluminum— will get these larger exemptions. These exemptions would decrease the effective tax rate.  For example, the cement, iron and steel, aluminum and glass sectors are expected to pay only 20% of the rate — $3 per ton (R 24). The waste, forestry, and agriculture sectors will be completely excluded from the price (see the figure below for the effective rate over time).

Read more

Most observers would say Ann Coulter is pretty extreme as conservatives go. In the wake of Fukushima, she said radiation is “good for you.” She has said she would tell a gay son that “he was adopted” and then ask him for redecorating tips. She pushes the well-debunked myth Obama attended a radical Islamic madrassa.

So when she says the conservative movement has “a problem with con men and charlatans,” you know things have gotten way out of hand. Yet here she is at a local Republican party dinner in Florida, answering a question about the prospect of a brokered convention:

And just a more corporate problem is I think our party and particularly our movement, the conservative movement, does have more of a problem with con men and charlatans than the Democratic Party….  The incentives seem to be set up to allow people … as long as you have a band of a few million fanatical followers, you can make money….

Watch it:

Barry Bickmore, a geochemistry professor at Brigham Young University, who describes himself as “an active Republican” who “was a County Delegate for the Republican Party” from 2008-2010, agrees with Coulter:

This is nowhere more evident than in the climate policy debate.  The Republican Party is beset by “con men and charlatans” whose specialty is to convince people that there is no climate change problem.  And why do we believe them?  Because for people who think we should try to solve problems with as little government regulation as possible, it’s always easier to deny there is a problem at all….

And so we desperately want to believe that big problems are overblown or nonexistent.  Whenever a group of people “desperately wants to believe” something, there will always be someone willing to tell them what they want to hear, whether the opportunists are charlatans or simply nutjobs.

The question is whether the conservative movement can reject the charlatans and embrace science in time to enable us to prevent catastrophic global warming.

Related Posts:

• Washington Post: “The GOPs climate-change denial may be its most harmful delusion.”
• National Journal: “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones”

President Barack Obama called out the critics of a clean energy future in his fourth energy speech in as many weeks. He laid out plans for reducing America’s dependence on fossil fuels, while knocking politicians (aka Newt Gingrich) who “start acting like they can wave a magic wand and you’ll have cheap gas forever.”

Obama challenged the clean energy dismissals and jokes coming from Republican challengers, saying the approach keeps “us stuck in the past”:

If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail — They must have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society. They would not have believed that the world was round. We’ve heard these folks in the past. They probably would have agreed with one of the pioneers of the radio who apparently said, “Television won’t last. It’s a flash in the pan.” … One of my predecessors, Rutherford B. Hayes, reportedly said about the telephone: “It’s a great invention but who would ever want to use one?” That’s why he’s not on Mount Rushmore, because he’s looking backwards, he’s not looking forwards.

Watch it:

Though Obama has avoided touching climate change lately, his critique of science-blind politicians could easily apply to climate deniers.

We Need to Think Long Term About U.S.-China Clean Energy Trade

To keep the solar-panel market growing, the best thing the U.S. government can do is create a good environment for technology innovation, and that will require a combination of demand-side policies and protection from adverse price incentives. Photo: AP.

By Melanie Hart and Kate Gordon

The U.S. Department of Commerce early next week will issue a preliminary verdict on a trade petition filed by SolarWorld Industries America, Inc. That petition alleges that the Chinese government unfairly subsidizes crystalline silicon photovoltaic solar cells and modules by providing cash grants, tax rebates, cheap loans, and other benefits designed to artificially suppress Chinese export prices and drive U.S. competitors out of the market.

As a remedy SolarWorld wants the Commerce Department to levy import tariffs to alleviate damage from these artificially cheap panels on solar-panel manufacturers in the United States. At first glance this would seem to be a reasonable solution. A sustained look yields the same conclusion. But it is important to understand the dynamics of the U.S. solar-panel market—where our labor skills and ability to innovate are strong but where demand for solar panels is low due to the lack of any national commitment to lower carbon emissions or to diversify our sources of energy—to comprehend why import tariffs are not the only solution.

Indeed, this petition, along with a second action brought by SolarWorld accusing China of “dumping” its cheap solar panels into the U.S. market, has generated major controversy in the fledgling U.S. solar industry. Just about everyone seems to believe that Chinese officials are probably violating trade rules in this sector but there is substantial disagreement over what, if anything, the United States should actually do about it.

Our current trade institutions address illegal subsidies by levying import tariffs on imported subsidized goods. In theory when trade partners artificially suppress prices and export those underpriced goods to the United States, import tariffs should level the playing field by raising prices back up to natural market levels. In theory these tariffs are lowered over time and finally eliminated as the trade partner phases out its subsidies.

In the current case SolarWorld alleges that the Chinese government uses dumping and a variety of subsidies to artificially suppress solar panel export prices by a margin of at least 100 percent. SolarWorld has asked the Commerce Department to levy a comparable tariff to eliminate that price discrepancy.

Everyone agrees that imposing import tariffs on Chinese solar panels should benefit the U.S. solar module manufacturing industry. Solar-panel prices fell 50 percent in 2011, and that unusually steep price drop has eroded profit margins worldwide. Cheap Chinese manufacturing appears to have contributed to the price drop, so reducing the impact of Chinese prices on the U.S. market should slow the price decrease to a more sustainable rate and increase profit margins for U.S. manufacturers. U.S. tariffs on Chinese solar panels would also help manufacturers in other countries that do not provide these subsidies, such as some in the European Union, because those manufacturers also export to the United States and compete for U.S. market share.

What is less clear is how tariffs would affect the demand side in the United States.

Read more

by Shauna Theel, reposted from Media Matters

Last week, GM announced that it is temporarily halting production of the Chevrolet Volt, its plug-in hybrid vehicle. Fox News is reveling in the news, repeatedly airing a parody commercial that mocks the Volt and distorts its safety record, including on The O’Reilly Factor.

But only a few years ago, Bill O’Reilly was singing a different tune about advanced vehicles that reduce our vulnerability to gas price spikes, and the government’s role in incentivizing them. In 2008, O’Reilly suggested the government “mandate by law” that auto companies increase production of electric and flex fuel cars (which can run on 85% ethanol), and provide tax exemptions for flex fuel vehicles. Take a look at the contrast between O’Reilly’s attitude towards alternative fuel cars before and after President Obama’s inauguration:

O’Reilly wasn’t the only Fox figure with a more favorable opinion of alternative fuel cars in 2008, when the Bush administration was the one giving tax credits for alternative fuel and electric cars. In November 2008, Sean Hannity lectured a guest: “I don’t see why you don’t praise G.M. for what they are doing with their electric cars and hybrids.” And in December 2008, Greta Van Susteren asked a GM executive “when are you going to change your cars? Because I mean, like, since the early ’70s, we know that fuel has been a problem” (via Nexis transcripts).

Today, you’re more likely to hear Neil Cavuto attacking the Volt at every opportunity and other Fox anchors, including O’Reilly, recklessly distorting the safety of the Volt.

Contrary to the prevailing media narrative about low consumer interest in the Volt, electric car sales in 2011 were significantly higher than first year hybrid sales even in the midst of an economic downturn and without climate legislation. The Volt has received several awards including 2011 Motor Trend Car of the Year, and just this week was named European Car of the Year.

Despite its promise, Volt sales have been stifled in part by negative media backlash toward the car, especially from Fox. As GM’s CEO said in January, “We did not design the Volt to become a political punching bag and that’s what it’s become” (via Climate Progress).

Perhaps it’s time to remind Fox that the Chevy Volt is a “Win for The Home Team,” as Wall Street Journal auto columnist Dan Neil wrote in 2010:

A lot of people don’t like GM because: 1) the bailout, or 1a) Obama; or 2) the United Auto Workers; or 3) because some Monte Carlo or Cutlass Sierra or deuce-and-a-quarter left them walking a long time ago. That’s understandable. These are sour times. But for the moment, we should suspend our rancor and savor a little American pride. A bunch of Midwestern engineers in bad haircuts and cheap wristwatches just out-engineered every other car company on the planet. And they did it in 29 months while the company they worked for was falling apart around them.

– Shuana Theel is a researcher with Media Matters for America. This piece was originally published at Media Matters.

Tuesday, the U.S. Senate voted 57-41 to kill a “drill-baby-drill” amendment by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) to the transportation bill. His amendment, which would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling, bypassed the administration to approve construction of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, opened practically the entire coast of the United States to drilling, and mandated other oil and gas exploration, fell 19 votes shy of the 60 required. The amendment also contained provisions to extend tax cuts.

Fossil-friendly Democratic senators Mark Begich (AK), Joe Manchin (WV), and Claire McCaskill (MO) joined with 38 Republicans to support the measure.

An unusual combination of seven Republicans opposed the measure, along with 50 members of the Democratic caucus. Three — Sens. Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), and Olympia Snowe (ME) — represent Democratic-leaning New England states (both Snowe and Collins have previously opposed ANWR drilling).

The unfunded costs of the tax incentives in the bill likely scared off the four Republicans voting no — Sens. Bob Corker (TN), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Lee (R-UT), Marco Rubio (FL) — all politicians who have criticized federal government spending. Like the New England senators, Rubio and DeMint also represent coastal states with vibrant tourism industries and cultures dependent on the beauty of their coastlines, which could be permanently crippled by offshore drilling.

In a statement, Corker said, “Even though I strongly support the Keystone pipeline, having voted for it various times in the past, I could not support this amendment because it violates the Budget Control Act enacted last year.”

It is no surprise that Pat Roberts would push a bill so beneficial to dirty energy companies — after all, his top source of campaign money since 1989 has been Koch Industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, with more than $130,000 in individual and PAC contributions.

15 days. That’s all it took to build this 30-story, pre-fabricated hotel in the Southeastern Chinese city of Changsha. The speed of construction has left many astonished.

Built among dirt roads and dilapidated buildings, the hotel is a symbol of the development boom that has shifted 400 million Chinese into the urban environment — causing emissions to skyrocket in the process.

Typically, a prefabricated building will reduce construction time by about one-third to one-half. Construction time for this hotel was cut by up to two-thirds.

Johathan Kaiman of the LA Times wrote a fascinating piece last week on how the building came together and what it says about China’s construction industry:

“This is the tallest building in this county, and it’s also the fastest-built,” said Rong Shengli, one of the building’s planners, looking over the rural sprawl from a helicopter pad on the hotel’s roof. “Next we’re going to build a 50-story building. Then a 100-story one, then a 150-story one. And they’re all going to go up fast.”

Zhou Weidong, a vice president at Broad Sustainable Building, said the company was developing as quickly as its home country. Looking out the window of a company Buick, he noted that the squat concrete homes, convenience stores and auto repair shops lining the newly paved road between the headquarters of Broad Sustainable Building and central Changsha were at most a year old.

“Three years later, if you come back here, this will be a city,” he said. “That’s China. It changes overnight.”

Indeed, it is mostly construction activity — not just electricity — that is causing China’s greenhouse gas emissions to skyrocket. Last September, researchers writing in the Environmental Science and Technology Journal calculated that cement, iron and steel accounted for 46% of China’s carbon emissions growth, while electricity generation accounted for about 30% of growth.

Drought may be new norm for UK, thanks to Climate Change

Other stories below: U.S. economists back EU emissions plan; Could cherry blossoms bloom in the winter one day?

Met Office: Arctic sea-ice loss linked to colder, drier UK winters

The reduction in Arctic sea ice caused by climate change is playing a role in the UK’s recent colder and drier winter weather, according to the Met Office.

Speaking to MPs on the influential environmental audit committee about the state of the warming Arctic, Julia Slingo, the chief scientist at the Met Office, said that decreasing amounts of ice in the far north was contributing to colder winters in the UK and northern Europe as well as to drought. But she stressed that while it was one factor and not the “dominant driver” in the UK.

The south-east and other parts of England are experiencing especially dry conditions after months of below-average rainfall, with some water companies pledging on Monday to introduce hosepipe bans to conserve water….

Slingo told the MPs that there is “increasing evidence in the last few months of that depletion of ice, in particular in the Bering and Kara seas, can plausibly impact on our winter weather and lead to colder winters over northern Europe”.

She added that more cold winters mean less water, and could exacerbate future droughts. “The replenishment of aquifers generally happens in winter and spring … a wet summer does not replenish aquifers. So we are concerned if we have a sequence of cold winters that could be much more damaging,” she told the committee.

Last month the environment secretary, Caroline Spelman, warned farmers that drought might become “the new normal” for the UK, because of climate change.

Read more