President Barack Obama characterized clean energy cynics in the GOP presidential field as would-be members of the Flat Earth Society. Birther and Romney-endorser Donald Trump cast himself with the Flat Earth candidates yesterday, with his latest tirade against clean energy.

Trump told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto:

Wind is destroying the environment in many, many places. People are going crazy over the horrible, noisy, disgusting windmills. And they are horrible and a horrible intrusion, ruining communities, and solar is weak and has not been effective and is very, very expensive.

Trump’s position on wind energy being “disgusting” more likely has to do with his battle in Scotland to prevent wind turbines from obstructing the view on his planned golf resort. Trump is bankrolling the fight against the renewable energy and has already clashed with leaders there, who have called his tactics “bullying.”

Romney — who is Trump’s pick as the Republican nominee — also positions himself against wind energy development, sometimes with the (poor) joke that “you can’t drive a car with a windmill on it.”

by Glenn Tamblyn, reposted from Skeptical Science

In a previous post we discussed how the argument that the Earth has stopped warming doesn’t make much sense because the people claiming this don’t know how to draw their ‘system boundaries’ correctly – how can you work out whether the Earth is warming if you don’t take account of all the places where it may be warming? And most commentary seems to only focus on surface temperatures. Which is only 3% of the Total Heat Content change.

So in this follow-on we would like to try and convey this warming from all the parts of the climate system in terms that we can all grasp. Grasp at an imaginative and visceral level. Because numbers, no matter how accurate, can be rather dry and hard to digest.

Do the math, Follow the heat….

Previously we showed the following diagram from the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 report, highlighting the warming of the atmosphere and how small it was compared to the total warming.

Now we would like to focus on the total figure at the bottom and try to convert that into numbers that we can all get our heads around. To try and make numbers with lots of zeroes meaningful.

The total heat accumulation in the environment from 1961 to 2003 is estimated as 15.9 x 10²² Joules. Got that? Is that clear in your head? Now read on…

Read more

If you thought the weather this winter was warmer than usual, you’re right. Last week alone, over 2,600 weather records were broken, including over 1,000 new high temperature marks nationwide. Overall, this winter will go in the books as the fourth-warmest on record. The unusual weather has already done considerable damage to the agricultural sector in the South, particularly in drought-ravaged Texas.

Now, forecasters are warning of another weather-related danger: an early start to storm season, as evidenced by a powerful Michigan twister reported on Thursday which caused considerable property damage. Forecasters report that one cause of the severe weather was warmer-than-usual air temperatures:

The severe thunderstorm warnings came as much of the country east of the Rocky Mountains enjoyed yet another day of unseasonably high temperatures. Forecasters at Accuweather.com said that warm air was helping to fuel Thursday’s storms.

“It’s just so warm that we’re seeing thunderstorms pop up like popcorn the way you see it in the summertime,” said Dave Samuhel, a meteorologist at Accuweather.com.

The Thursday tornado had winds of 135 miles per hour. It would be the earliest recorded date a tornado that strong touched down in Michigan, according to the Tornado History Project. And as the National Weather Service reported yesterday, 36 states forecast warmer-than-average weather this spring, which could make storm season even worse.

Unfortunately, climate deniers still hold considerable sway in some circles, even if they have to “throw out 150 years of physics” to make their case. But as climate scientist Jim Hurrell noted, “The planet is getting warmer and it will continue to warm, on average, as we go into the future.” That spells trouble not just for Tornado Alley, but potentially for the entire country.

-Zachary Bernstein

Faced with global warming facts on the Rachel Maddow show last night, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) countered, “It’s not true.” Maddow asked him to react to the 97 percent of scientists who agree that global warming is real. Although Inhofe was eager to point to anecdotal evidence for his conspiracy theories, he simply replied:

That isn’t true Rachel. You say something over and over again and your audience, particularly your liberal audience, they want to believe it [...] This 97 percent, that doesn’t mean anything. I’ve named literally thousands of scientists on the floor.

As a prominent climate denier and Big Oil favorite, Inhofe’s ignored the scientific evidence throughout the interview. But he’s not known for relying on scientific research — recently, he quoted the Bible as proof.

One of his points was that environmentalists aren’t “winning” despite outspending the energy industry 2-1. But environmentalists are the ones vastly outspent by dirty energy, 8 to 1 in lobbying and contributions during the climate bill debate. Inhofe’s evidence was a discredited Climate Shift report where even the leading expert on the report withdrew his name.

During the interview, Inhofe denied Big Oil’s mere existence, saying “because we hear things about big oil but what you hear is not all that big of oil.” Inhofe said the $4 billion in tax breaks to oil doesn’t count as a subsidy, even though he admitted the industry is “actually doing really well right now.” The top five oil companies alone made $137 billion in profits, while spending $146 million lobbying Congress to maintain those same tax breaks.

As Maddow herself pointed out, Inhofe benefits from polluters doing well — he’s taken almost $500,000 from oil and gas, and unsurprisingly Koch Industries is his No. 1.

Watch part 1 and part 2 of the interview:
Read more

Senate’s top denier pushes myth enviros far outspent industry in climate fight

Did you see the big smack down last night between MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)? The dean of disinformation mostly just repeated his well-worn falseshoods about global warming, which Maddow shot down.

But there was one remarkable admission from the former Chair of the Senate Environment Committee:

“I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this. I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost.”

In short, learning about the (supposed) high cost of the solution is what turned him from a believer in climate science to a denier.

Yes, you always have to take what Inhofe says with a grain of (smelling) salt, but this admission confirms what many of us have been saying for years (see Krauthammer (6/08): ”The real reason conservatives don’t believe in climate science”). As the NY Times explained about a 2008 denial conference, “The one thing all the attendees seem to share is a deep dislike for mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gases.” If you can’t abide the cure, you’re much more likely to deny the disease.

The journalist Michael Kinsley famously said, “A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.”

Watch it (4 minutes in):

[Apologies for that absurd ExxonMobil Keystone tar sands ad.]

It’s long been clear that it’s far more costly not to act (see Scientists find “net present value of climate change impacts” of $1240 TRILLION on current emissions path). And the International Energy Agency explained last year, ”Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.”

Ironically, the kind of denial and delay Inhofe is promoting guarantees much bigger and more intrusive government in the coming decades, for two reasons:

Read more

David Wojick

In an interview with the subscription-only Climatewire, Wojick said that teaching the facts of climate change is “wrong” because that’s just “one side of the debate”:

Wojick believes climate materials developed for teachers in 2009 by the U.S. Global Change Research Program portray a one-sided description of the man-made impacts that he says do not exist. Although thousands of scientists and educators contributed to the development of the materials, called “Climate Literacy: The Essential Principles of Climate Science,” Wojick described them as part of the “dangerous AGW school of thought.” He was referring to anthropogenic global warming.

“That stuff is wrong,” Wojick said yesterday. “I mean, that’s teaching one side of the debate. In fact, if you look through the Climate Literacy stuff, there’s no indication of a debate. The concept of a debate is not raised. So you obviously can’t use that stuff to teach the debate.”

The notion that accepted scientific facts must be presented as only “one side of the debate” is a scary one indeed. Perhaps in Wojick’s world, science teachers should have to spend equal time explaining that gravity might not exist, the moon might be made of green cheese, and that the Earth might be flat.

One in a series of posts about the Heartland Institute’s inner workings, from internal documents acquired by ThinkProgress Green. ThinkProgress is among several publications to have published documents attributed to the Heartland Institute and sent to us from an anonymous and then unknown source. The source later revealed himself. Heartland Institute has issued several press releases claiming that one document (“2012 Climate Strategy”) is fake and asserting other claims regarding the other documents. ThinkProgress has taken down the “2012 Climate Strategy” document as it determines the document’s authenticity.

by Kirsty Jenkinson and Samantha Putt del Pino, reposted from WRI Insights

For decades, many companies have typically responded to sustainability challenges by pursuing incremental operational improvements. But we are beginning to see an interesting new trend – businesses using sustainability as a tactic for long-term offense, rather than just short-term defence.

Despite the uncertain economic outlook, leading international companies across diverse sectors are investing heavily in sustainable products and services. Others are making cross-industry partnerships to develop next generation products such as the elusive mass market electric car.

Some are even enhancing their business models through mergers and acquisitions that seek to address, and capitalise on, sustainability trends.

The big challenges

What is driving this marked shift in approach? In our view, it is not just a focus on marketing or corporate social responsibility or even the need to manage costs and improve efficiency. Instead, leading companies are demonstrating a growing belief that their future profit and growth will be tied to how effectively they respond to looming global challenges including resource scarcity, population growth, and climate change.

These challenges are very real. Feeding a global population of nine billion people in 2050 will require a doubling of present food supply, unless we find ways to boost farmers’ production and reduce food waste.

Demand for freshwater is expected to grow by 25% in developing countries and 18% in the developed world by 2025. Meanwhile, the impacts of climate change are becoming more vivid – as exemplified by droughts in parts of the southern US and massive flooding in Bangkok.

Read more

by Erica Flock

In July 2011, the Brisbane Times reported that Australia’s carbon price was dead in the water. Polling revealed that support for the legislation was low and that Prime Minister Julia Gillard had done a poor job explaining the bill. Down in the trenches, mud was flying: a politician compared a progressive activist organization supporting the carbon price, GetUp!, to the Hitler Youth League (GetUp!, by the way, is also the organization that produced this moving and wildly viral video in support of marriage equality last fall).

Despite ferocious opposition, the carbon price squeaked through the Australian parliament months later, sending a jolt of optimism through the global community. Like other climate bills, it ended up being pockmarked with holes gaping enough to drive an SUV through, but one of the largest per-capita carbon emitters in the world was clearly willing to throw its hat in the ring on climate action. The skeptics had been proven wrong.

Here in the U.S., activists perked up at news of Australia’s carbon price but overall seem hardened to federal policy after the American Clean Energy and Security Act failed to pass in 2010 (many environmentalists were opposed to the hulking and imperfect bill anyway, adding another layer of ambivalence). And don’t even mention the attitude in Congress. “We’re busy enough fighting off attacks on the EPA” is the mantra Democratic Congressmembers and environmentalists alike are fond of repeating these days.

But like crocus bulbs shifting under the frozen ground, a movement has been building for federal climate policy. And the time is right: belief in climate change among the general public has just taken an upward turn, according to Brookings.

Partly due to the pressure applied by groups like Citizens Climate Lobby, politicians and other leaders are beginning to warm up the public on carbon pricing.

Read more

by Mary Anne Hitt, reposted from the Sierra Club

As coal use drops dramatically in the U.S. and clean energy continues to grow, King Coal is looking for new customers. The coal industry is now pursuing its corporate profits via coal exports at the expense of the health, safety, and quality of life of thousands of families in several states, including Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon.

Right now, several major coal companies are proposing to develop Northwest ports to export coal from the Powder River Basin to Asia; including ports at Cherry Point, WA; Longview, WA; Grays Harbor, WA; Coos Bay, OR; St. Helens, OR; and Port of Morrow, OR. You can see a map of the proposed ports here.

Coal exports could make thousands of Northwest residents sick with serious respiratory health problems in cities along the rail line, while fouling the air and water that farms and Main Street businesses depend on.  For residents in Montana who have been battling the effects of coal mining in the Powder River Basin, the idea of coal companies tightening their grip on their resources and quality of life to tap international markets is particularly threatening.

To be a modern Republican in good standing, you have to believe — or pretend to believe — in two miracle cures for whatever ails the economy: more tax cuts for the rich and more drilling for oil. And with prices at the pump on the rise, so is the chant of “Drill, baby, drill.” More and more, Republicans are telling us that gasoline would be cheap and jobs plentiful if only we would stop protecting the environment and let energy companies do whatever they want.

In place of the news round up today, I’m excerpting Paul Krugman excellent op-ed, “Natural Born Drillers.” The Nobel-prize winning economist debunks popular but fact-free right-wing myths:

Thus Mitt Romney claims that gasoline prices are high not because of saber-rattling over Iran, but because President Obama won’t allow unrestricted drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Meanwhile, Stephen Moore of The Wall Street Journal tells readers that America as a whole could have a jobs boom, just like North Dakota, if only the environmentalists would get out of the way.

The irony here is that these claims come just as events are confirming what everyone who did the math already knew, namely, that U.S. energy policy has very little effect either on oil prices or on overall U.S. employment. For the truth is that we’re already having a hydrocarbon boom, with U.S. oil and gas production rising and U.S. fuel imports dropping. If there were any truth to drill-here-drill-now, this boom should have yielded substantially lower gasoline prices and lots of new jobs. Predictably, however, it has done neither.

Outside of the WSJ editorial page, though, even the newspaper itself doesn’t buy this nonsense (see Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal and Koch-Fueled Cato Agree: “It’s Not Obama’s Fault That Crude Oil Prices Have Increased”).  Nor does the public (see Poll: 66% Blame Big Oil and MidEast Countries For High Gas Prices, 23% Blame Obama).

Here’s more from Krugman:

Read more