To go by the polls, the high point of public understanding of climate science was 2006 to 2008. That’s no surprise, since that period  saw a peak in media reporting on climate science, starting in 2006 with An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary of Al Gore’s PowerPoint presentation on climate science, and continuing in 2007 with the 4 scientific assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Disputes on the science were kept to a minimum in the 2008 election since both major candidates — Barack Obama and John McCain — understood and articulated both climate science and the need for action. It wasn’t until after Obama was elected with progressive majorities in both houses of Congress and the prospects for climate action became real that the anti-science disinformation campaign kicked into overdrive.

Ironically, or tragically, just as the anti-science disinformation campaign was ramping up, the advocates of climate action decided to downplay climate in their pitch for action, as the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein explained it in his June 2010 article, “Can you solve global warming without talking about global warming?“

And the media’s coverage of climate science  utterly collapsed (see “Silence of the Lambs 2: Media Herd’s Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change Drops Sharply — Again“). Indeed evening news coverage dropped from over 386 minutes of coverage in 2007 to 32 minutes (!) last year:

Because of this collapse in media coverage, Gallup’s polling questions that begin “from what you’ve read or heard” is not an ideal way to find out what the public actually knows, as  leading social scientists explained to me last year (see “Experts Debunk Polls that Claim Sharp Drop in Number of Americans Who Understand Global Warming Is Happening“).

Many polls indicate a rebound  in public understanding of climate science — see “Public Opinion Stunner: More Americans Understand World is Warming — Thanks to Rick Perry, Reports Reuters.” Krosnick attributes some of the rebound to the coverage of climate during the GOP presidential contest.

Brookings — and the public itself — puts the rebound on  the amazing spate of extreme weather. As Climate Progress reported in late February, Americans are attributing their increased belief in global warming to their (correct) perception that the planet is warming and the weather is getting more extreme. Roughly half of people who believe in global warming said that these were the primary influence:

Read more

by Dana Nuccitelli, via Skeptical Science

Almost exactly two years ago, John Cook wrote about the 5 characteristics of science denialism.  The second point on the list involved fake experts.

“These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.”

We have seen many examples of climate denialists producing long lists of fake experts, for example the Oregon Petition and the Wall Street Journal 16.  Now we have yet another of these lists of fake experts.  49 former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) employees (led by Harrison Schmitt, who was also one of the Wall Street Journal 16) have registered their objection to mainstream climate science through the most popular medium of expressing climate contrarianism – a letter.  As is usually the case in these climate contrarian letters, this one has no scientific content, and is written by individuals with not an ounce of climate science expertise, but who nevertheless have the audacity to tell climate scientists what they should think about climate science.

It’s worth noting that when the signatories Meet The Denominator, as is also always the case, their numbers are revealed as quite unimpressive.  For example, over 18,000 people currently work for NASA.  Without even considering the pool of retired NASA employees (all signatories of this list are former NASA employees), just as with the Oregon Petition, the list accounts for a fraction of a percent of the available pool of people.

This letter, as these letters always do, has gone viral in the climate denial blogosphere, and even in the climate denial mainstream media (Fox News).  But why exactly is this letter being treated as major news?  That is something of a mystery.  Or it would be, if the behavior of the climate denial community weren’t so predictable.

The Signatories

Obviously this letter first gained attention because the signatories are former NASA employees.  They are being touted as “top astronauts, scientists, and engineers” and “NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience.”  Okay, but in what fields does their expertise lie?

Read more

On May 11, a group of children will face off against the Obama Administration and the National Association of Manufacturers for the latest round in a David vs. Goliath battle in federal court.

The kids filed a lawsuit last year against the Administration, arguing that common law requires governments to protect critical natural resources on behalf of current and future generations. In this case, the kids argue, the government has an inherent duty to protect the atmosphere from greenhouse gas emissions, and all of us from the impacts of global climate change.

In their lawsuit, a group called Our Children’s Trust filed against a who’s who of Administration officials, including EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins ruled that the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and several California businesses could intervene against the kids, based on the argument that limiting greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a “diminution or cessation of their businesses” — in other words, jeopardize their profit margins.

Now, NAM and the Administration have asked the judge to dismiss the case. That’s the motion to be considered in May.

Blogger Ben Jervey has done a good job describing the lawsuit’s background, including who the kids are and why they’re doing this, so I won’t go into it here.

But I am curious about an argument from one of the attorneys for the business group, who said that companies have a “legally protected cognizable interest to freely emit CO2.”

Of course, what is legal is not necessarily moral. But morality is the province of the clergy, not the courts. More to the point, it would seem that the public — present and future — has a “cognizable interest” to live without the natural disasters, health hazards, humanitarian tragedies and threats of war that are the likely results of climate change and that already are in evidence today.

Further, as unofficial co-plaintiffs in this case, we might all point out that while companies can resolve this problem by installing better emission controls, or using cleaner fuels, or changing the nature of their operations, the damages from greenhouse gas emissions are not so easily avoided. In fact, scientists tell us that some of the damages are irreversible.

At the heart of this case, it seems to me, is not whether current law permits corporations to willfully alter the atmosphere with their wastes. If we depend solely on political bodies to protect the climate, for example, then we will politicize the atmosphere as well as polluting it. The health of oceans, forests, fresh water supplies and soils — and consequently human beings — will all be subject to the whims and prejudices of politicians.

The real issue is whether the health of the natural systems and resources that all of us “own” is protected by a doctrine that transcends the interests of any one industry, the statutes of any one congress, the actions of any administration, or the abdication of responsibility by any of them.

As a 65-year-old, I am embarrassed that our children now feel obligated to face off against the giants of industry, the government and all their lawyers. These kids are stepping in where the elders in Washington and the international community have feared to tread.

But it’s also heartening. This lawsuit could establish the idea that protecting a global life-support system from irreparable harm is a higher priority than corporate profits — profits derived by making us all pay the true price of spewing greenhouse gas emissions.

It’s our kids who will have to live with the court’s ultimate decision. But it’s in all of our interest for Judge Wilkins to allow the lawsuit to proceed.

Bill Becker is Executive Director of the National Sustainable Communities Coalition in Washington, D.C., and a senior associate at Natural Capitalism Solutions in Colorado.

After the Environmental Protection Agency issued rules for regulating carbon emissions from coal plants, the President of the United Mine Workers of America oddly compared the coal industry to Osama Bin Laden.

“The Navy SEALs shot Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and Lisa Jackson shot us in Washington … the coal industry is not far behind with respect to what happened with Osama Bin Laden,” said UMWA’s Cecil Roberts.

It’s hard to think of a worse analogy for your industry. Leave it to faux-pundit Stephen Colbert to run with this one, coming up with an even better comparison for coal:

“Well done, sir. Osama Bin Laden was definitely the sympathetic figure in that story. And who can forget how upset the American people were when the American government took Bin Laden out. If you’re comparing the coal industry to homicidal maniacs, I would have gone with Sadaam Hussein. The guy knew a lot about fossil fuels and he spent some time in an underground shaft.”

Watch the whole segment:

by Kiley Kroh and Michael Conathan

Analysts at one of the world’s largest insurance markets are warning that offshore drilling in the Arctic would “constitute a unique and hard-to-manage risk” and urged companies to “think carefully about the consequences of action” before exploring for oil in the region.

Lloyd’s of London, a large UK-based insurance pool, issued a report today outlining the severe environmental and economic risk of oil and gas drilling in Arctic waters. The stunning report comes as Royal Dutch Shell prepares for exploratory drilling operations in the Arctic – even while leading experts warn that there’s virtually no infrastructure in place to clean up an oil spill in the fragile region.

As Arctic ice continues to melt due to climate change, Lloyd’s estimates the region will attract $100 billion in new investment over the next decade. However, analysts warn that responding to an oil spill in a region “highly sensitive to damage” would present “multiple obstacles, which together constitute a unique and hard-to-manage risk.”

The environmental consequences of disasters in the Arctic have the potential to be worse than in other regions. The resilience of the Arctic’s ecosystems in terms of withstanding risk events is weak, and political sensitivity to a disaster is high. As a result, companies operating in the Arctic face significant reputational risk.

It’s easy for oil companies to dismiss environmentalists concerned about the Arctic as politically-motivated. But when a centuries-old company that has made billions of dollars judging risks and insuring everything from Betty Grable’s legs to the World Trade Center’s new Freedom Tower, thinks an operation might be a little too edgy for them, it ought to make oil companies stand up and take notice.

Richard Ward, Lloyd’s chief executive, “urged companies not to ‘rush in [but instead to] step back and think carefully about the consequences of that action’ before research was carried out and the right safety measures put in place.”

Lloyd’s report includes a laundry list of reasons why oil companies ought to hit the pause button on offshore Arctic drilling, including:

• Significant knowledge gaps across the Arctic need to be closed urgently
• Arctic conditions will remain challenging and often unpredictable
• The environmental consequences of disasters in the Arctic are likely to be worse than in other regions
• The politics of Arctic economic development are controversial and fluid.

Here in the U.S., Shell is on the brink of permits to begin drilling in the pristine Arctic Ocean this summer, despite the concerns of environmental groups, Alaska Native communities, and even federal agencies such as the US Coast Guard and NOAA.  Aside from the long-term climate risk, their chief concerns revolve around Shell’s ability to respond to an oil spill challenging region – which can be dark, frigid, extremely remote, and sorely lacks even the most basic infrastructure.

The challenges posed by these harsh and unpredictable conditions are outlined in the Center for American Progress report, Putting a Freeze on Arctic Ocean Drilling: America’s Inability to Respond to an Oil Spill in the Arctic.  As the two-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy approaches, it is critical to remember the plethora of personnel and resources needed to facilitate the largest, most coordinated oil spill response effort in our nation’s history. A similar undertaking would be impossible in the Arctic.

These warnings are echoed in the Lloyd’s report, as well as in a new independent federal report issued by the Government Accountability Office, which concluded that Shell’s “dedicated capabilities do not completely mitigate some of the environmental and logistical risks associated with the remoteness and environment of the region.”

As both the CAP report and Lloyd’s recommend, a substantial commitment to science and monitoring is necessary to “close knowledge gaps, reduce uncertainties and manage risks.”  In addition, “full-scale exercises based on worst-case scenarios of environmental disaster should be run by companies,” as well as a significant investment in infrastructure and monitoring to facilitate “safe economic activity.”

If the world’s largest insurance market is warning companies to slow down because we are unprepared for the enormous risks of Arctic exploration, then the U.S. ought to think carefully before we encourage drilling.

Kiley Kroh is Associate Director of Communications for Oceans Communications at the Center for American Progress. Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress.

A handful of outside groups, fueled by oil and coal dollars, are committing tens of millions to propel Big Oil to the forefront of the 2012 elections — outspending the Obama campaign on political energy ads by an overwhelming amount.

In the first three-and-a-half months of 2012, groups including Americans for Prosperity, American Petroleum Institute, Crossroads GPS, and American Energy Alliance have spent $16,750,000 on energy attack ads. The total amounts to more than $56 million, including the American Clean Coal Coalition’s pledge of $40 million on ads promoting coal.

According to a Think Progress analysis, there have been at least $16,750,000 worth in dirty energy ad buys since January:

American Petroleum Institute spent $4.3 million since January, reported by the Washington Post.

Crossroads GPS has spent a total $2.85 million since January, with three major ad buys. Crossroads spent $500,000 distorting the administration’s Solyndra record, $650,000 on gas prices, and $1.7 million promoting “drill, baby drill.”

American Energy Alliance bought $3.6 million of gas price ads for the “largest effort of its kind in AEA’s history.” The group is partially funded by Charles and David Koch.

Americans For Prosperity: $6 million on an ad distorting Obama’s Solyndra record, which ran in at least six states. This followed an earlier $2.4 million Solyndra ad in November, which was not included in the total count.

By comparison, the Obama campaign and his super PAC have spent at least $1.67 million defending the president’s energy record.

Other groups have pledged to spend millions more this election cycle, and will include ads focusing on promoting pro-oil and coal interests:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce has committed to spend more than $50 million this year on a range of issues. So far it has targeted several lawmakers, including Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who faced $2.5 million of ads against him for wanting to end oil subsidies. In February, it spent $200,000 ads promoting Rep. Rick Berg (R-ND) for his pro-oil stance.

American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity: $40 million overall campaign to push coal interests to the forefront of the presidential campaign.

American Crossroads, whose donors include oil and gas executives, has a bankroll of more than $200 milllion for 2012.

Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch “plan to pump at least $100 million through their network of independent groups” which include Americans for Prosperity and the American Energy Alliance.

Ad spending this cycle has skyrocketed 1600 percent compared to the 2008 race, partly due to oil and gas’s serious money to elect a candidate committed to putting oil’s profits first.

Our round-up of the latest in climate and clean energy. Please post additional links below.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Wednesday that scientific evidence of climate change is getting more and more powerful, comments that come as global warming legislation remains moribund in Congress and Environmental Protection regulations are facing ongoing GOP assaults. [The Hill]

Oyster hatcheries along the Washington and Oregon coastlines began experiencing calamitous die-offs beginning in 2006. Scientists suspected they were due to increased carbon dioxide levels in the air that were causing ocean acidification. That theory has now proved out, according to a study just published by the journal Limnology and Oceanography. [New York Times]

A one-by-10-mile oil sheen has appeared in the Gulf of Mexico, and Shell Oil, one of several companies operating in the area, said it has “activated” a vessel with skimming and boom capabilities. [Washington Post]

Canadian provinces and territories are “all over the map” in terms of climate change plans, with Ontario, Quebec and B.C., leading the way while Alberta and Saskatchewan are lagging, says a report card released Wednesday by the David Suzuki Foundation. [Vancouver Sun]

Connecticut’s public works regulator plans to distribute $720 million to zero-emissions, renewable-energy generation and $300 million to low-emissions generation over the next several years, detailing for the first time how the state will spend more than $1 billion of required investments in commercially generated renewable power.[CT Post]

Global investment in clean energy dropped to its lowest since the depths of the financial crisis three years ago as the U.S. and European nations cut support for wind and solar projects, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said. [Bloomberg]

From the poorest parts of Africa and Asia to the most- developed regions in the U.S. and Europe, solar units, small-scale wind and biomass generators promise to extend access to power to more people than ever before. In the developing world, they’re slashing costs in the process. [Bloomberg]

The Jamaican government has established an advisory committee — manned by some of the island’s brightest scientific minds — as it moves to have the long-awaited Climate Change Department up and running by year-end. [Jamaica Observer]