It always amazes me how many climate bloggers don’t know the scientific literature and don’t use Google to check key facts.

And so, in the annals of phony attacks on climate realists, such as International Energy Agency chief economist Fatih Birol (and me), we now have the most inane. Our bunny friend Eli Rabbet has a brilliant post nibbling on the know-nothings who foisted this inanity on the blogosphere (click here, reposted below).

But the story is so entertainingly informative (informatively entertaining?) as to how the blogosphere fabricates attacks on people that I’ll run through the key elements. On Friday, May 24, I published a piece headlined “IEA: Global CO2 Emissions Hit New Record In 2011, Keeping World On Track For ‘Devastating’ 11°F Warming.”

I have written literally dozens and dozens of posts explaining that this is what the IEA (and others) now says is possible by 2100. Here, for instance, is an M.I.T. figure I use a lot:

Humanity’s Choice (via M.I.T.): Inaction (“No Policy”) eliminates most of the uncertainty about whether or not future warming will be catastrophic.  Aggressive emissions reductions dramatically improves humanity’s chances. Note that this is 2091-2100 surface warming compared to 1981-2000 — and the mean warming during that time is 5.17°C [See Table 4], which means from preindustrial times to 2100, the total warming would likely exceed 5.7°C.

I confess I thought this was so obvious that it slipped my mind to actually put in the phrase “by 2100.” But the original Reuters story (here) did have an obvious mistake:

“When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,” Fatih Birol, IEA’s chief economist told Reuters.

Again, I thought the mistake, “(by 2050),” was so obviously one the reporter foisted on Birol with the parenthetical comment that I simply omitted it in my post:

“When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius [11°F], which would have devastating consequences for the planet.”

I (too) cleverly took out the obviously incorrect parenthetical comment by the reporter and replaced it with  Fahrenheit conversion. I had intended when I was writing the article to mention that Reuters made a mistake but it slipped my mind by the time I finished.

Note to self: Always do things when you think of them and don’t expect to remember them at some later time!

When a commenter went to the original Reuters piece and pointed out that 2050 “makes no sense,” I noted in the comments “I meant to post that 2050 is obviously a mistake by the reporter.”

What I didn’t know — because I have stopped reading the blogs of the disinformers and confusionists since their traffic and their impact hit a brick wall a long while ago — is that some easily and/or willfully confused bloggers spun up a phony attack on Birol (and me) because they assumed, nonsensically:

1. That Birol made the mistake, not the reporter.
2. That I agreed with the mistake — even though I had never posted it and in fact had obviously omitted it from my post!

Now what makes this exemplary of the kind of nonsense the disinformers and confusionists push on a regular basis is that anybody who actually had a moment’s doubt about the timeframe over which IEA believes the warming will occur could  find out the answer in under 30 seconds on Google!

Just Google “IEA 6C Warming” and the second hit is this UK Guardian piece from April 24 of this year, “Governments failing to avert catastrophic climate change, IEA warns,” about IEA executive director Maria van der Hoeven:

On current form, she warns, the world is on track for warming of 6C by the end of the century – a level that would create catastrophe, wiping out agriculture in many areas and rendering swathes of the globe uninhabitable, as well as raising sea levels and causing mass migration, according to scientists.

And just in case there was any confusion, the article quotes her directly two paragraphs later:

“Energy-related CO2 emissions are at historic highs, and under current policies, we estimate that energy use and CO2 emissions would increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050. This would be likely to send global temperatures at least 6C higher within this century.”

Talk about much ado about nothing. Or is that much ado from know nothings?

I should add that whether the 11F warming is from preindustrial levels or just the warming this century or it doesn’t happen until say 2125 is beyond irrelevant. The first 4C (7F) of warming is going to destroy a livable climate, possibly for centuries, and what comes after that is, well, beyond imagining. Still, the planet would almost certainly keep warming past 2100 if we were on the high emission scenario:

• Science stunner — On our current emissions path, CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter:  Paleoclimate data suggests CO2 “may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models”

Steve Easterbrook’s post “A first glimpse at model results for the next IPCC assessment” shows that for the scenario where there is (5°C) 9°F warming by 2100 (from preindustrial levels), you get another 7°F warming by 2300.  Of course, folks that aren’t motivated to avoid the civilization-destroying 9°F by 2100 won’t be moved by whatever happens after that.

I’ll end my post with Birol’s great quote from late last year, World on Pace for 11°F Warming, “Even School Children Know This Will Have Catastrophic Implications for All of Us.” If only school children blogged more!

Finally, I’ll let our hopping mad friend Eli Rabett explain the full story.

Read more

Campaigning in Craig, Colorado yesterday, Mitt Romney’s campaign claimed that no clean energy jobs exist in the state — even though the Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are more than 70,000 of them.

Romney also made another blunder: By using the town of Craig has an example of a “hurting” community in coal country, his speech was based on a fabricated story. After the speech, town residents completely contradicted Romney’s talking points in interviews with the New York Times:

The city’s finance director, Bruce Nelson, said that tax revenue had bounced back strongly since last late year. “We are holding our own,” he said.

Terry Carwile, the mayor of Craig and a retired coal miner, went further, saying that the economy was “getting better” in the town of 9,500 as oil speculation intensified. He played down the suggestion that federal regulations had wounded the local coal industry.

“The policies of the federal government really aren’t that impactful to us so far,” he said. He acknowledged that they were “a concern,” though, and that residents were ever wary of government meddling in their biggest industry.

That was not the message from Mr. Romney, who spoke to about 1,000 residents in a park near the town’s center.

Romney also ignored another inconvenient fact: Coal production and jobs are both up in Colorado.

“I’m not going to forget Craig, Colorado,” Romney said in yesterday’s speech. “I’m not going to forget communities like this across the country that are hurting right now under this president.”

However, unemployment in the county is down from 11 percent last year to 8.3 percent this year. And state-wide, coal production was up 10.4 percent in 2011 after seven years of decline. According to the Denver Post, the industry is planning four new mines.

The story is similar in West Virginia, where coal mining employment has grown by 1,500 since 2009 — a two-decade high. Coal generation may be down 19 percent nationally, but this is largely due to the low price of natural gas, not regulation.

Peabody Energy bused 148 miners to Romney’s speech and compensated the miners for their time.

by Jessica Goad

A new study released today by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finds that in three regions, homes sited close to national wildlife refuges have a higher value than those that are further away.

The study, “Amenity Values of Proximity to National Wildlife Refuges,” provides even more evidence that protected public lands are good for local economies and communities, despite what some opponents in Congress and their industry allies might claim.

The Fish and Wildlife Service called this report “the first national study to analyze national wildlife refuges’ impact on land values.” It finds:

On average, being in close proximity to a [national wildlife refuge] increases the value of homes in urbanized areas, all else equal. Specifically, we find that homes located within 0.5 miles of a [refuge] within 8 miles of an urban center are valued:

-  4% – 5% higher in the Northeast region;

-  7% – 9% higher in the Southeast region; and

-  3% – 6% higher in California/Nevada region.

Census data was used to focus on the 93 refuges in the lower 48 states within two miles of an urban area. Additionally, they found that total capitalized value of a specific refuge can be anywhere between $1 million and $40 million.

In addition to raising home values, the Department of the Interior found that national wildlife refuges contributed $4 billion to the economy and supported 32,000 jobs in 2010.

Despite their extraordinarily valuable contributions to local economies, some Republicans in Congress have sought to roll back protections for national wildlife refuges and limit the ability to designate new ones.

Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), introduced the National Wildlife Refuge Review Act (H.R. 3009) which would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from establishing new wildlife refuges and turn over that authority to Congress, which has not passed any meaningful land conservation bills since John Boehner (R-OH) has been Speaker of the House.

And the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act (H.R. 4089), introduced by Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL), would roll back a number of important environmental laws for national wildlife refuges.

Despite the partisan attacks on our public lands, evidence continues to mount showing that protecting them offers a range of economic benefits. For example, a report from Headwaters Economics earlier this month determined that over 40 years jobs increased by 300% in rural Western counties with more than 30% protected lands.

– Jessica Goad is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

I’m drawn to “boring” ways to change energy use: things like daylighting, reducing packaging, and making company supply-chains more efficient. Without these methods to help reduce our energy demand, the “exciting” solutions like renewable energy are less valuable.

And what could be more boring than painting a roof white? Turns out, it’s also an important solution for reducing energy use and lowering carbon dioxide emissions.

A NASA survey of New York City’s rooftops last July showed that dark, heat-absorbing rooftops were up to 42 degrees F hotter than white rooftops. And that difference in heat can make a big difference in on-site energy use; painting a roof white can reduce air conditioning demand as much as 20 percent.

In February, researchers at Concordia University estimated that painting one percent of the world’s urban surfaces white (rooftops and pavement) could reduce CO2 emissions by 130 gigatons over the next 50-100 years. In 2011, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion reached 31.5 gigatons.

Clearly, white roofs are a major opportunity. But while we’ve seen a proliferation of companies selling on-site solar and efficiency services, there’s been only modest activity in this market. Why aren’t more companies jumping on this around the country?

“I’m not sure why an organization doesn’t exist like this in every city. And it should,” says Juan Carlos, founder of the White Roof Project, a non-profit based in New York City that harnesses volunteers to provide roof painting services.

Having found a good niche with decent demand, the organization is now trying to branch out of New York and take its rooftop painting model nationwide. According to Carlos, painting 5% of the world’s rooftops white per year by 2030 could save enough emissions to equal the world’s carbon output in 2010.

“That would essentially turn off the entire world for an entire year,” he says.

The film below documents what the organization is trying to accomplish. With cities around the world adopting building codes to promote white roofs, the opportunities for this solution are increasing. But we’ve still got a long way to go before we can service so many rooftops per year.

The International Energy Agency has a new report out, Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas. Unfortunately, the IEA buried the lede — the Golden Age of Gas scenario destroys a livable climate — so the coverage of the report was off target.

For instance, the New York Times opines, “Energy Agency Finds Safe Gas Drilling is Cheap.” And the Council on Foreign Relation headline is similar, “Safe Fracking Looks Cheap.”

That’s true only if a ruined climate, widespread Dust-Bowlification, an acidified ocean, and rapidly rising sea levels is your idea of “safe.”

Still, the IEA deserves much of the blame for this miscoverage. It’s not until page 91 (!) of the full report that the agency explains that adopting its “Golden Rules” for developing shale gas doesn’t stop catastrophe:

The Golden Rules Case puts CO2 emissions on a long-term trajectory consistent with stabilising the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions at around 650 parts per million, a trajectory consistent with a probable temperature rise of more than 3.5 degrees Celsius (°C) in the long term, well above the widely accepted 2°C target. This finding reinforces a central conclusion from the WEO special report on a Golden Age of Gas (IEA, 2011b), that, while a greater role for natural gas in the global energy mix does bring environmental benefits where it substitutes for other fossil fuels, natural gas cannot on its own provide the answer to the challenge of climate change.

D’oh! Or is that Duh?

The IEA was far clearer and blunter when it released its original report, as I wrote last year: IEA’s “Golden Age of Gas Scenario” Leads to More Than 6°F Warming and Out-of-Control Climate Change. At the time, the UK Guardian‘s story put it well:

At such a level, global warming could run out of control, deserts would take over in southern Africa, Australia and the western US, and sea level rises could engulf small island states.

Not exactly a champagne moment.

Also, it’s far from clear that 650 ppm is even stable, in the sense of not triggering carbon cycle feedbacks that cause further warming — or not crossing dangerous tipping points (see “New study of Greenland under ‘more realistic forcings’ concludes ‘collapse of the ice-sheet was found to occur between 400 and 560 ppm’ of CO2” and “Hansen Is Correct About Catastrophic Projections For U.S. Drought If We Don’t Act Now“).

If we risk warming beyond 3.5C, we are courting multiple, simultaneous disasters. Such warming is “incompatible with organized global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems & has a high probability of not being stable (i.e.  4°C [7F] would be an interim temperature on the way to a much higher equilibrium level),” according to Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change in Britain (see here).

Also, the IEA scenario assumes coal use is basically flat from from 2020 to 2035, which the report makes pretty clear would require a price on carbon. Without a carbon price, natural gas is a brige to nowhere and can actually crowd out carbon-free sources of power. That was precisely the point made by Nobuo Tanaka, executive director of the IEA, at a London press conference for the 2011 report:

“While natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, it is still a fossil fuel. Its increased use could muscle out low-carbon fuels such as renewables and nuclear, particularly in the wake of Fukushima. An expansion of gas use alone is no panacea for climate change.”

The UK Guardian focused on the crowding effect for its piece Tuesday on the new report, “ ‘Golden age of gas’ threatens renewable energy, IEA warns.”

To be clear, the “Golden Rules” proposed by the IEA still lead to a 20% rise in energy-related CO2 emissions from 2010 to 2035, a time we need to be slashing global CO2 levels. As climatologist Ken Caldeira told me in March, natural gas is “A Bridge To A World With High CO2 Levels.

Oh, and there’s a mini-bombshell that the IEA sticks in a footnote when discussing options for avoiding the 3.5+ C warming:

Read more

by Tom Perriello and Richard Caperton

Yesterday, Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney revealed that underneath his tough talk on China, he is ready to concede the clean energy race and future jobs to America’s competitors. A broadside of misleading attack ads from his campaign and his supporters at Crossroads GPS betray a bipartisan consensus on investing in competitiveness and not resting until America wins the jobs of the future.

If the ads are any indication, a Romney administration would willingly cede American leadership in critical industries of the future to our competitors abroad. For more than two centuries, the U.S. government has made smart investments in strategically important industries such as agriculture, transportation, telecommunications, and energy—investments that have allowed American businesses and entrepreneurs to get ahead. Now is not the time to knee-cap American workers and American innovation. International competition in the industries of the future is stronger than ever—and the winners are in countries that are leading, not following.

China in particular labels clean energy as a “strategic emerging industry” and is investing tens of billions of dollars in this industry every year. The green in China’s focus is not just about the environment—it is also about their bottom line. While the Solyndra bankruptcy here in the United States was unfortunate, it would be a serious mistake to prematurely admit defeat in the race to creating a clean energy future here at home. Even an independent review conducted by Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) national finance chair found that the Department of Energy program poses very low risk to taxpayers. Romney and Karl Rove—the founder of Crossroads GPS—are attacking public investments in clean energy at the same time the Chinese government is pouring billions into renewable energy. Future generations will judge us not by particular failures but by our ultimate success in the energy race.

Here are the key facts about global economic competitiveness in clean energy:

• By 2020 clean energy will be one of the world’s biggest industries, totaling as much as $2.3 trillion. Of the seven strategic emerging industries identified by China’s State Council as focal points for government investment in economic growth, five are related to the clean energy economy.
• Ernst and Young ranks China as “the most attractive country in the world to invest in renewable energy.”
• “Investors have spent nearly $100 billion on renewable energy in China in the last two years, far outpacing the United States,” according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, referring to 2010 and 2011.
• Every Group of 8, or G-8, developed nation besides Russia has made significant government investments in renewable energy, and the countries with the most stable government commitments are leading the industry forward.

Is clean energy a good investment for America? The program supporting Solyndra began under former President George W. Bush and was carried out by President Barack Obama’s team at the Department of Energy. Here are the facts of the matter:

Read more

Mount Everest has become a microcosm for the rest of the planet. Once an isolated place for adventurers, the mountain is now extremely crowded, polluted, and facing dramatic changes as global temperatures rise.

As commercial climbing outfits have blossomed over the last two decades, more and more climbers are flocking to Everest. The overcrowding problem became clear earlier this month when the mountain was clogged by a traffic jam of roughly 150 people trying to reach the summit — contributing to the death of four climbers.

The traffic jam made big news. But a couple weeks before the incident, another major event took place on the mountain that only got attention from within the climbing community.

Russell Brice, head of the leading Everest climbing operation Himalayan Experience, announced that he would pull his team off Everest, citing unprecedented temperatures that made climbing too dangerous. Heeding advice from experienced Sherpas worried about the warmth, Brice decided to cancel his 2012 expedition because of unstable ice.

In a blog post, Brice’s crew explained the decision:

• Already at the beginning of the season, the Sherpas were saying that it was too warm when they were setting up base camp. They were working in T-shirts.
• Our Sherpas continuously reported that the icefall is more dangerous and the ‘popcorn area’ is more active this year. They were not worried about taking the risk but they were very aware of the increased hazards.
• In 2011, this risk of the looming seracs on the West Ridge was more acceptable as the debris fell into the Bergschrund, a deep crevasse between the glacier and the mountain. Then we were about 100m away from where debris was falling, however, this year the Bergschrund is filled and there is no protection at all. The route has dropped off and now we are only 25m to 30m away from debris, which is constantly covering the route.
• When we first arrived at base camp at the beginning of April, the crack in the ice block on the West Ridge was pretty small – now it is probably between 5 and 7 metres wide. This means that the pressure within the ice blocks is huge. So far, we only had small pieces come down, however, there is certainly the potential for a huge collapse, which could kill and injure a large number of people.
• We have been recording the temperature at 2am when the Sherpas are usually leaving to go through the icefall. There have only been a few days when it was colder than -10 C, which is unusual and not really cold enough to be moving through the icefall
• Now, it is only the beginning of May and lakes are forming at base camp. Today, on 8^th May, it is as warm as it is normally at the end of the season and it will only get warmer, which means the danger in the icefall will increase.

This is not the first warning sign for climbers on Everest. Apa Sherpa, a Nepali “super sherpa” who has been up Everest more than 20 times, has expressed deep concern for the changes he’s seen on Everest over the last two decades.

“In 1989 when I first climbed Everest there was a lot of snow and ice but now most of it has just become bare rock. That, as a result, is causing more rockfalls which is a danger to the climbers,” he recently told AFP News in an interview.

In 2011, the International Center for Integrated Mountain Development issued an assessment of glaciers in the Himalayas, finding that glaciers in the region have declined by 21 percent over the last 30 years.

Increasingly unstable ice and rock are making Everest ascents more dangerous. Greg Paul, a climber with Himalayan Experience, explained the decision to abandon the mountain this year: “Russell [Brice] expects an accident of catastrophic proportions to possibly [sic] hit the icefall.”

by Jane Dale Owen

Although few people will even know about it, one of the most powerful corporations in the world is meeting in Dallas today.

How shareholders vote on resolutions in that meeting is critical to public health and the environment. The corporation is Exxon Mobil — the largest, most profitable energy corporation in the world. The shareholder resolutions call for more information about the effects of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking; company goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and creating a climate future task force.

I am a shareholder in Exxon Mobil, and I have deep roots in the oil business. My grandfather, Robert Lee Blaffer, was one of the founders of Humble Oil Company, the parent company of Exxon Mobil. My grandfather was a humanitarian and fiscally responsible. At that time he was unaware of the side effects of oil extraction and the refining process. I believe he would want me to do what I can as a shareholder to influence this powerful company to move toward a more sustainable future.

Being a shareholder in an extremely profitable energy company comes with financial benefits, and it comes with responsibility. Shareholders have the right to vote, speak and influence the company from the inside. It is up to us to hold Exxon Mobil accountable for the way it does business. In this season of annual shareholders meetings, we are seeing that shareholders do have power. To use that power we must stay involved. We are more powerful as shareholders than any unnoticed vote we could make by selling our shares.

Do we really want our company to be making deals with Russia to teach them the fracking process? Or to give them a stake in the Gulf of Mexico and West Texas in exchange for oil exploration rights in the Russian Black Sea and Kara Sea? Do we want Exxon Mobil to inflict the environmental damage associated with extracting oil from the tar sands in Canada? Do we want our refineries to continue to endanger the lives of children and families living near them?

Under the banner of energy independence, Exxon Mobil is throwing caution to the wind and moving full speed ahead into fracking, off-shore drilling and in other environmentally sensitive areas. A better long-term plan for energy independence would be to steer away from fossil fuels and move toward limitless solar, wind and geothermal.

If Exxon Mobil put resources into solving public health and environmental threats, they could be positioned to innovate and compete in the fast-changing, resource-constrained global economy. This powerful company could be a leader in doing what is needed now to turn a climate catastrophe around.

As shareholders of Exxon Mobil, we are part of a company that has unprecedented influence all over the world. We must exercise our power as shareholders and insist that our company become a better corporate citizen and use its power for a life-sustaining future.

Jane Dale Owen is granddaughter of Robert Lee Blaffer, one of the founders of Humble Oil and Refining Company, the parent company of Exxon Mobil. She is president and founder of Citizens League for Environmental Action Now (CLEAN) www.cleanhouston.org, an organization that for more than a decade has been working to inform and educate the public about solutions to environmental issues.

Related Post:

• Exxon Makes $104 Million In Profit Per Day So Far In 2012, While Americans Are Stuck With A Higher Gas Bill

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

Toyota’s Prius, a niche oddity when it went on sale 15 years ago, was the world’s third best-selling car line in the first quarter as U.S. demand and incentives in Japan turned the hybrid into a mainstream hit. [The Columbus Dispatch]

Republican super PACs and other outside groups shaped by a loose network of prominent conservatives – including Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – plan to spend roughly $1 billion on November’s elections for the White House and control of Congress, according to officials familiar with the groups’ internal operations. [Politico]

Romney, a former private equity executive, backed tax breaks for film makers and biotech and medical-device manufacturers. His administration promoted venture capital-style funds that extended loans to start-up companies, some of which subsequently went out of business. [Reuters]

Coal is in a corner. Across the United States, the industry is under siege, threatened by new regulations from Washington, environmentalists fortified by money from Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor of New York City, and natural gas companies intent on capturing much of the nation’s energy market. [New York Times]

The Seattle City Council has unanimously passed a resolution opposing development of coal-export terminals in Washington over concerns about increased train traffic and potential harm to health and the environment. [New York Times]

The Memorial Day Weekend brought a rare combination of extreme weather events to much of the U.S., with everything from record heat to wildfires, plus the most intense tropical storm on record to make landfall prior to June 1. Here’s a breakdown of some of the most notable extreme weather events. [Climate Central]

The European Union’s greenhouse gas emissions rose in 2010 for the first time in six years, but the 27-nation bloc is still on track to meet its target under an international climate accord, the EU’s environmental agency said Wednesday. [Washington Post]