A protester outside Heartland's climate denier conference. Photo: Kelly Mitchell

“I don’t appreciate being called a terrorist,” the woman said firmly.

I was standing outside the Hilton Chicago hotel talking to Jim Lakely, the director of communications for the Heartland Institute, when an elderly woman approached us on the street. Dressed in a business suit, she was loading her luggage into a taxi when she noticed Lakely’s Heartland name badge and interrupted our conversation.

“We can have a civil discussion. But I really don’t like being labeled a terrorist,” she said, referencing a billboard posted by Heartland equating people who believe in global warming to the Unibomber. “That’s all I wanted to say.”

“Well, I appreciate you telling me that,” said Lakely, who was taking a break from managing Heartland’s conference to watch the 60 or so people protesting the event outside the hotel.

The woman, who was wearing a badge for a different conference, got into her taxi and drove away. There was a brief moment of awkward silence between me and Lakely.

The exchange perfectly encapsulated the public relations disaster the Heartland Institute has created for itself over the last few weeks. The downfall started with an offensive billboard campaign on May 3rd and ended with 11 companies pulling support for the organization — stripping 35% of corporate funds overnight and leaving its financial future uncertain.

The dramatic drop in support was facilitated by the advocacy organization Forecast the Facts, which collected more than 150,000 signatures from people calling on corporate donors to end their relationship with Heartland.

This series of events built on an earlier incident in which Peter Gleick, a scientist with the Pacific Institute, faked his identity to acquire internal documents from the Heartland Institute. Those documents showed that the organization planned to secretly develop school curriculum to spread doubt about the causes of climate change. It also opened up a window to the organization’s donors, which were forced to make a decision about whether or not they wanted to be associated with Heartland’s tactics.

And then yesterday, the other shoe dropped. In his closing speech, Heartland President Joseph Bast announced that the organization does not have the money to continue putting on its hallmark climate conference — an event that had become a rallying point for an insulated group of climate disinformers.

“I hope to see you at a future conference, but at this point we have no plans to do another ICCC,” said Bast, explaining that Heartland was struggling to meet expenses.

The cancellation marks the end of an era — albeit a short era — for the oddball world of organized climate change denial.

The event, called the International Conference on Climate Change, was started in 2008 as a way to organize libertarians  — many of whom believe that taking action on climate change would create a one-world government dominated by the United Nations.

Heartland tried hard to label the event a “science” conference. But the presentations were almost always political, peppered with anti-government rhetoric and conspiracy theories.

“We’re in a war. We’re in a war against our standard of living,” said Walt Cunningham, a former NASA astronaut, speaking in a morning session on Tuesday.

“There’s not a lot of science here,” said Scott Denning, an atmospheric scientist from Colorado State University who attended the event last year to present the so-called “warmist” case. Neither Denning nor any of the other 97% of climate scientists who say human activity is warming the planet presented at this year’s conference.

In fact, none of this year’s top speakers had any background in climate science. Instead, they spoke about the issues in highly conspiratorial terms.

Read more

While House Republicans hold events across the country today — pushing discredited claims about the Environmental Protection Agency and drilling, through the ironically named House Energy Action Team — President Obama will make the case in Iowa for extending renewable energy tax credits to save American jobs. Speaking at an Iowa wind blade manufacturer in Newton, Iowa, Obama presents his “To Do” list for Congress, which includes prioritizing the Production Tax Credit for wind.

The Center for American Progress traveled to Iowa to talk to experts about the PTC. In this video, Dr. Harold Prior of the Iowa Wind Energy Association and Brian Crowe of the Iowa Economic Development Authority explain how lacking national renewable energy policies hurt development and investments in wind in the long-run. Watch it:

Wind energy provides thousands of jobs in Iowa, like this one of a turbine maintenance worker in Franklin County.

As a national leader in wind generation and jobs, Iowa workers benefit immensely from the PTC. There are more than3,000 manufacturing and operations jobs in Iowa, and 6,000 to 7,000 workers overall, with more than 215 wind-related businesses. Wind energy powers nearly 1 million Iowa homes with electricity, and 20 percent of the state’s total electricity.

Though some Republicans choose to ridicule wind energy, the PTC has broad bipartisan support. For instance, an op-ed from a Republican business owner argued, “The president kept our doors open and our employees working because of the wind-production tax credit and 1603 Treasury grant program.” Meanwhile, 64 percent of Americans support congressional efforts to encourage investments in clean energy. So with Americans firmly behind the President’s proposal, the question remains whether Congress will act.

by Eric de Place via Sightline Daily

There are at present six proposals to export coal from Northwest ports. If all of these proposals are built, and if all of them operate at full capacity, the Northwest would be shipping 145 million tons of per coal year.

When burned, that coal will produce roughly 262 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. It’s such a staggering figure, that it’s a little hard to grasp. So here’s some context:

The coal export proposals are, in other words, a disaster for the climate. In aggregate, they are actually far worse than the Keystone XL pipeline.

If you want to dig into the numbers on a project by project basis, here they area:

• Cherry Point, Washington. SSA Marine is planning to build and operate the Gateway Pacific Terminal, a new shipping facility north of Bellingham that would be capable of handling 48 million tons of coal per year. Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private sector coal company, has already agreed to supply 24 million tons of coal.
• Longview, Washington. Millennium Bulk Terminals, a subsidiary of the Australian coal mining company Ambre Energy, purchased a port site on the Columbia River. Arch Coal, a major American coal mining company, has a 38 percent stake in the site. Ambre hopes to export 44 million tons of coal, with 25 million tons in the first phase.
• Grays Harbor, Washington. According to newspaper accounts, RailAmerica is planning to develop a coal export terminal at the Port of Grays Harbor’s Marine Terminal 3 that could handle 5 million tons of coal each year.
• Port of St. Helens, Oregon. Kinder Morgan is planning to build and operate a coal export terminal at the Port Westward Industrial Park near Clatskanie that will be capable of handling30 million tons of coal per year, with 15 million tons in an initial phase of development.
• Port of Morrow, Oregon. Ambre Energy is planning to construct a facility on the Columbia River in eastern Oregon that will transfer coal from rail to barges that will be towed downriver to Port Westward where the coal will be loaded on ongoing vessels. The company says that the system will be capable of handling 8 million tons per year.
• Coos Bay, Oregon. The Port of Coos Bay is considering a mysterious proposal, known to the public only as “Project Mainstay,” that officials say could export 6 to 10 million tons of coal per year.

Notes: My calculations assume that Powder River Basin coal generates 8,500 BTUs per pound, and that 1 million BTUs produces 212.7 pounds of CO2. Gasoline consumption refers to “motor gasoline” and comes the US Federal Highway Administration’s statistics and assumes 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon of gasoline.

– by Eric de Place. This post is part of the research project, Northwest Coal Exports, and is reprinted with permission. An earlier version can be seen here, Coal Exports and Carbon Consequences.

Related Posts:

• Coal Exports Are Bigger Threat Than Tar Sands Pipeline
• Why Coal Leasing Should Be The Center Of The Climate Fight

“Feeding some 9 billion people by mid-century in the face of a rapidly worsening climate may well be the greatest challenge the human race has ever faced.”

Last year, the journal Nature asked me to write a Comment piece after they read one of my posts on prolonged drought and “Dust-Bowlification.” The article was published October 27, 2011 (here, subs. req’d).

Since six months have passed, I can reprint the entire piece on ClimateProgress (see below).

This was my first piece ever in the journal itself.  I did have an online piece, “Nature publishes my climate analysis and solution.”  This is not a peer-reviewed article but rather a “Comment” piece.

I sent it to five of the world’s leading authorities on climate change and drought and the hydrological cycle:  Kevin Trenberth, Aiguo Dai, Michael Mann, Peter Gleick and Jonathan Overpeck.  I endeavored to incorporate their comments, but unfortunately Nature has a 10-reference limit for their Comment pieces so I wasn’t able to include as many references as they suggested or as I would have liked.  If you want links to most of the articles I refer to, go here.

I was particularly delighted that Overpeck liked the term “Dust-Bowlification.”  He really was an inspiration for me to begin studying this topic many years ago when I saw a 2005 presentation of his, “Warm climate abrupt change–paleo-perspectives,” that concluded “climate change seldom occurs gradually” (see The “global-change-type drought” and the future of extreme weather).

I was equally delighted Nature has basically endorsed this term through its multiple appearances in this article and felt that the overall issue warranted more attention.

I do not believe that most Americans — and that includes most policymakers and the media — understand the convergence of the recent scientific literature on the extreme threat posed directly to this country of Dust-Bowlification (see “Climate Story of the Year: Warming-Driven Drought and Extreme Weather Emerge as Key Threat to Global Food Security“).

I am glad that leading climatologists like James Hansen are starting to talk more about the threat posed by drought — since it is painfully clear that even some people considered climate experts are unaware of the literature (see “James Hansen Is Correct About Catastrophic Projections For U.S. Drought If We Don’t Act Now“).

As I wrote in the article:

Human adaptation to prolonged, extreme drought is difficult or impossible. Historically, the primary adaptation to dust-bowlification has been abandonment; the very word ‘desert’ comes from the Latin desertum for ‘an abandoned place’. During the relatively short-lived US Dust-Bowl era, hundreds of thousands of families fled the region. We need to plan how the world will deal with drought-spurred migrations and steadily growing areas of non-arable land in the heart of densely populated countries and global bread-baskets. Feeding some 9 billion people by mid-century in the face of a rapidly worsening climate may well be the greatest challenge the human race has ever faced.

Now, Dust-Bowl conditions could stretch all the way from Kansas to California by mid-century. America’s financial future and the health and safety of our people are at serious risk if greenhouse gas pollution is not brought under control quickly.  The food security of all of humanity is at risk. Denial is simply not an option, the time for action is now.

Here is the whole article:

Read more

by Adam James

A new paper from Dr. Susan Tierney at the Analysis Group confirms that Americans do not have to choose between clean air, a liveable climate, and reliable electricity.

The coal industry has been lobbying intensely against new clean air standards and regulations for carbon dioxide emissions. There are two important takeaways from the report that debunk the coal lobby’s arguments against EPA regulations:

1. Despite coal plant closures, PJM (the largest grid operator in the country) actually exceeded its targeted reserve margin — capacity above peak levels — following its annual auction.
2. Wholesale electricity rates have decreased in since 2009 and are projected to drop 10 percent from 2011 levels by 2015.

The people who operate our grid are doing it reliably and with less coal. Last week, the Energy Information Administration found that coal’s share of electricity generation had dropped from 44.6 percent in Q1 of 2011 to 36 percent in Q1 of 2012. Yet the lights stayed on.

Why It Matters

There are two things consumers want from a utility: to turn on the lights cheaply and to do it without harming public health or the environment.

The idea that we can’t have both is a fallacy. Proponents of coal have conducted a very aggressive (albeit, incorrect) messaging campaign that goes something like this:

1. Coal is cheap
2. Cheap coal makes cheap electricity
3. Therefore, reducing reliance on cheap coal means more expensive and/or less reliable electricity

This argument has come up repeatedly as a reason to reject EPA air quality regulations to limit coal pollution, including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) and the Carbon Pollution Rule. Now, most folks believe that these regulations are important — even if they do lead to slightly higher costs, since public health is a serious concern.

But we don’t have to choose between higher costs and less pollution, as Dr. Tierney explains.

Read more

by Daniel J. Weiss

Fossil fuel companies and their political allies have spent millions of dollars on advertising to persuade Americans that drilling and mining are the best solutions to our energy problems. Despite their spending, these polluters haven’t convinced most Americans – including many Republicans — to support their proposals.

A brand new United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll found overwhelming public support for renewable energy tax credits, a clean energy standard, and increased regulation of hydraulic fracking for oil and gas production.

The nationwide poll of 1,004 adults was conducted from May 17-20. It asked respondents about whether tax credits for renewable energy — such as the Production Tax Credit for wind set to expire the end of this year — should be extended:

Supporters of these tax credits say they should be extended because they create jobs and encourage the development of cleaner sources of energy. Opponents say they should end because they cost too much and have not been effective at encouraging the use of renewable energy. Do you think Congress should extend these energy credits, OR allow them to expire?

By better than a two to one margin, respondents wanted to extend the incentives. Independents favored such an extension by 64 to 29 percent, as did 48 percent of Republicans.  Only 43 percent of Republicans opposed the PTC extension.

Today, President Obama plans to visit TPI Composites, a manufacturer of wind turbine blades in Newton, Iowa that employs 700 people.  He is expected to again urge Congress to extend the PTC because it is vital for job creation and maintaining competitiveness in the wind energy industry. The National Journal poll suggests that most Americans agree with him.

Poll respondents demonstrated additional strong support for clean energy when they were asked about whether they favored a Clean Energy Standard that would require utilities to generate 80 percent of their electricity with low- or no carbon resources by 2035.

Legislation recently introduced in the U.S. Senate would create a national clean-energy standard that requires the country to generate an increasingly large percentage of its electricity from cleaner sources of energy, including renewable energy, natural gas, and nuclear power. Supporters of this policy say it would promote cleaner energy and not add an undue cost onto consumers. Opponents say imposing a national clean-energy standard would cost jobs and create higher electricity costs. What is your opinion – do you think the country should or should NOT create a national clean-energy standard?

The National Journal poll found that supporters outnumbered opponents by nearly 40 percent. This included independents who favored it by 64 to 23 percent. Even Republicans favored a Clean Energy Standard by one percent.

Fossil fuel interests are spending millions of dollars advertising and lobbying to convince Congress to leave hydraulic fracturing unregulated — despite its production of large amounts of air, water, and climate pollution.   So far, it appears Big Oil has made little progress convincing the public to support their position. Respondents were asked:

Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is a process used to develop deposits of natural gas recently discovered in many regions of America. Environmentalists and some residents living near drilling operations worry that fracking can contaminate drinking water sources and worsen climate change. The oil and natural gas industry maintains the process is safe and can create jobs and promote energy independence. Which of the following comes closest to your view of what the federal government should do on this issue?

One of six respondents wanted to “ban fracking altogether because it’s not safe for the environment.”  A majority supported an “increase in regulation of fracking to protect the environment, but NOT ban it.”  A total of sixty eight percent wanted either a ban or more safeguards from fracking. Only one quarter of poll subjects wanted to “reduce regulation of fracking to encourage more natural gas production.”

Some 68 percent of independents wanted to ban or regulate fracking. A clear majority of Republicans wanted either a ban or more regulation. Only 41 percent of GOPers wanted to reduce regulation.

Read more

In a major sign of confidence during a period of “rolling uncertainty” in the global renewable energy market, Goldman Sachs says it will invest $40 billion in the sector over the next decade.

The investment bank is already a major financier of renewable energy and energy efficiency around the world, putting $4.8 billion into projects last year alone.

Taken across the next decade, the new $40 billion plan would mean that Goldman is investing $800 million less per year than in 2011. However, it would still roughly equal the rate of investment during its first major foray into the sector between 2005 and 2011, according to Reuters:

In 2005, Goldman pledged to invest and finance $1 billion of environmentally friendly projects. By the end of 2011, the company had exceeded its goal, arranging $24 billion worth of financing and investing $4 billion into such projects, said Kyung-Ah Park, head of environmental markets at Goldman.

So is this a real vote for the sector or a public relations ploy?

Goldman was thrust back in the spotlight in March after a former executive wrote an op-ed lambasting the bank for “toxic and destructive” behavior.

“The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for,” wrote former Executive Director Greg Smith.

And in April, Goldman was given an “F” on a report card grading investment banks for their coal financing activities. While the bank actively monitors and reports emissions from coal-fired power plants it owns in the U.S., Goldman still doesn’t have a stated policy on destructive mountaintop removal coal mining.

There’s no doubt that Goldman — and every other investment bank — sees the opportunity to invest in renewable energy as a way to improve its brand. But committing $40 billion to the sector is more than a public relations campaign. It’s a clear sign that banks see the benefits of investing in these technologies.

“When investors deploy capital into renewable energy projects, they’re investing in proven technologies: solar PV, wind, biomass, geothermal. These technologies can be put to work today. Deals can be structured such so that investors can enjoy virtually bond-like, long-term returns with immediate yield,” said Bill Green, senior managing director of Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, in a recent interview.

Goldman executives agree with that assessment. From the Reuters story:

Stuart Bernstein, head of Goldman’s clean technology and renewables investment banking group, compared the opportunity to technology investments in the 1990s or investing 10 years ago in fast-growing countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China, for which Goldman economist Jim O’Neill coined the term “BRIC” in 2001.

“This is another emerging opportunity we think will be quite large,” Bernstein said.

“Obviously we recognize this is not the easiest of times in the clean energy market but nevertheless the underlying thesis as to why cleaner and more sustainable forms of energy need to scale up still holds true,” Park said.

In 2011, global investments in clean energy totaled $260 billion — bringing cumulative investments since 2004 to over one trillion dollars. Last year was also the first time that investment in renewable energy surpassed fossil fuels.

A round-up of the top climate and energy news. Please post additional links below.

The gap between the emissions cuts needed to contain global warming and actual reductions by 2020 is at risk of widening as countries including the U.S., Brazil and Mexico fail to meet pledges, Climate Action Tracker said. [Businessweek]

At best, commitments would lead to emissions 9 gigatons (9 billion tons) higher than the 44 gigatons needed in 2020 to stop the planet warming more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) since industrialization, the project said in Bonn, where two weeks of United Nations talks end tomorrow.

A temperature increase of at least 3.5 degrees Celsius on the current greenhouse-gas trajectory may accelerate because nations are indicating they will miss 2020 pledges, Climate Action Tracker said after analyzing presentations made by countries at the meeting.

Obama will hold a grass-roots campaign event in Iowa Thursday evening. Earlier in the day, Obama will be seeking support for an election-year agenda to encourage renewable energy along with a more immediate prize: the state’s up-for-grabs voters. [Washington Post]

Killer heat fueled by climate change could cause an additional 150,000 deaths this century in the biggest U.S. cities if no steps are taken to curb carbon emissions and improve emergency services, according to a new report. [Chicago Tribune]

Already this spring, several large fires have charred the southwestern landscape, and an expanding drought suggests that this summer is going to be a busy one for the nation’s 2,000 elite hotshot crew members who are specially trained to fight Mother Nature’s most fearsome blazes. [Climate Central]

The Obama administration announced that BP North America Inc. has agreed to pay an $8-million fine and install more than $400 million in equipment to cut air pollution from an oil refinery in Whiting, Ind., as part of a settlement over alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. [Los Angeles Times]

Business secretary Vince Cable, responsible for the UK’s Green investment bank (GIB), visits the German development bank KfW today, a day after the law establishing the GIB was published. It will be an interesting visit. [Guardian]

The German government will more closely oversee the country’s move from nuclear power to renewable energy, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Wednesday — a mammoth 10-year project for Europe’s biggest economy that has been going slowly so far. [Washington Post]