Some North Carolina GOP legislators want to stop the use of science to plan for the future. They are circulating a bill that would force coastal counties to ignore actual observations and the best science-based projections in planning for future sea level rise.

King Canute thought he had the power to hold back the tide (in the apocryphal legend). These all-too-real lawmakers want to go one better and mandate a formula that projects a sea level rise of at most 12 inches this century, far below what the science now projects.

A state-appointed science panel reviewed the recent literature and reported that a 1-meter (39 inch) rise is likely by 2100. Many coastal studies experts think a level of 5 to 7 feet should be used, since you typically plan for the plausible worst-case scenario, especially with expensive, long-lived infrastructure.

The 2011 report by the National Academy of Science for the U.S. Navy on the national security implications of climate change concluded:

Based on recent peer-reviewed scientific literature, the Department of the Navy should expect roughly 0.4 to 2 meters global average sealevel rise by 2100, with a most likely value of about 0.8 meter. Projections of local sea-level rise could be much larger and should be taken into account for naval planning purposes,

Rob Young, a geology professor at Western Carolina University and a member of the state science panel, pointed out to the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF) that this proposed law stands against the conclusions of “every major science organization on the globe.” Young notes, “Every other state in the country is planning on three-feet of sea level rise or more.” The Charlotte Observer notes:

Maine is preparing for a rise of up to 2 meters by 2100, Delaware 1.5 meters, Louisiana 1 meter and California 1.4 meters. Southeastern Florida projects up to a 2-foot rise by 2060.

Read more

Ads from Mitt Romney and American Crossroads earlier this week disparaged solar energy, leading up to Romney’s surprise visit to Solyndra today.

The Crossroads ad targets the Obama administration for green energy investments, but features a company that once received taxpayer support from Governor Romney’s administration. Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent points out that one company featured in Crossroads’ ad — Evergreen Solar — received $2.5 million during Romney’s term:

The Crossroads video, which is embedded below, cites the Massachusetts company Evergreen Solar as an example of a company that received taxpayer money before declaring bankruptcy or suffering “serious financial issues” — which the video derides as a “risky investment strategy.” Romney picked up that attack line today, appearing in front of a shuttered Solyndra outlet to bash Obama.

But three weeks into Governor Mitt Romney’s term, Evergreen Solar received $2.5 million from the Romney administration for a “major expansion and to cover operating losses as it tried to become profitable,” according to a February article in Politico. The investment was part of a broader program in which the Romney administration gave millions in subsidies to multiple other companies, Politico reported.

Evergreen ultimately filed for bankruptcy last year, making this case very similar to Solyndra. Evergreen’s presence in the Crossroads ad was pointed out by the Obama-allied American Bridge.

In contrast, the New York Times reported in 2011 that “Evergreen has received no federal money.”

Romney’s attacks on Solyndra and clean energy have been misleading and often downright false. The rhetoric on Solyndra veers far from the reality of a loan that Republicans have thoroughly investigated, yet have found no scandal. As the New Republic pointed out Wednesday:

On balance, the White House seems to be playing Wall Street games—if that’s what you want to call massive investment in underfunded public infrastructure—pretty decently, and in a manner that produces more value for the public than private equity firms. Bain and Solyndra are really nothing alike.

Before etch-a-sketching, Romney embraced development of an industry he now says does not deserve investment (meanwhile, he’s silent on Big Oil subsidies).

by Kaid Benfield, via NRDC’s Switchboard

As almost everyone knows, Detroit is a city with some serious problems.  But, as I have written before, it’s more complicated than some pundits allow:  while it is true that the central city has been famously ”shrinking,” its suburbs have actually been growing in recent decades.  Looking at Detroit the region rather than Detroit the central city, the situation is still far from rosy, but not as dramatically dire as some suggest.

I find it nothing short of tragic that so many people are writing off the city’s prospects - and concentrating mainly on how to adapt to a decline of population and economic activity that they believe is essentially permanent – when the region has been expanding.  Hollowed-out centers accompanied by sprawl on the fringe are horrible for the environment and for people.  The last thing we should be doing is institutionalizing that pattern.

Urban thinker Richard Florida has a more optimistic view.  Writing in Atlantic Cities, he notes that things in the Motor City may be more promising than most people think:

“We’ve all read the story of Detroit’s downfall by now. Once a booming hub for automotive manufacturing and a center for technological innovation, the veritable Silicon Valley of its day, the city has witnessed devastating economic changes. Between 2000 and 2010, the city’s population fell by 25 percent, the largest drop of any city with a population over 100,000. Even New Orleans, despite Hurricane Katrina, didn’t see a population plunge as dramatic. At the height of the recent economic crisis, Detroit’s unemployment rate was 18.2 percent.

“But the other story of Detroit, the bigger one – is of its rebirth, its rising. Given the austerity of these times, this is less a story of top-down government efforts, and much more a story of the organic efforts of the entrepreneurs and artists, designers and musicians who have chosen to live in Detroit and be the stewards of its resurgence . . .

“Detroit is still a part of a large, diverse metro region. With a population of more than five million, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s combined statistical area (which includes Ann Arbor), and an economic output of more than $200 billion when you add Ann Arbor, greater Detroit is the nation’s 14th largest metropolitan economy. It remains one of the world’s leading centers of automotive technology and industrial design and with its recently expanded and renovated airport, it has aerotropolis-style connections to the world. Nearby Ann Arbor and Lansing, home to the University of Michigan and Michigan State, respectively, provide research and development assets that few places can match. If Detroit has lost much, it still has much to build on—and it is.”

All that is by way of introduction to what looks to be a terrific video series on the city’s uprising.  Here is the most recent installment:

Go here for the full series (three of five installments have been published so far).

Kaid Benfield writes (almost) daily about community, development, and the environment.  For more posts, see his blog’s home page. This piece was originally published at NRDC’s Switchboard and was reprinted with permission.

Half of Reviewed Companies Misrepresented Climate Science Despite Publicly Expressing Concerns

Union of Concerned Scientists news release

Many of the country’s leading companies have taken contradictory actions when it comes to climate change science while pumping a tremendous amount of resources into influencing the discussion, according to an analysis released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

The science advocacy group examined 28 companies in the S&P 500 that participated in climate policy debates over the past several years. All of them publicly expressed concern about climate change or a commitment to reducing emissions through websites and public statements, but half (14) also misrepresented climate science in their public communications. Many more contributed to the spread of misinformation about climate science in less direct ways, such as through political contributions, trade group memberships, and think tank funding.

“Corporations’ increased ability to influence policy should come with an increased responsibility to let the public know how they are doing so,” said Francesca Grifo, director of UCS’s Scientific Integrity Program and a contributor to the report. “Companies may play a role in policy discussions, but right now, it’s simply far too easy for them to get away with misrepresenting science to achieve their goals.”

Utilizing an array of publicly available data, the report systematically examines how corporate influence fosters confusion on climate change. The analysis found that some American companies, including NRG Energy, Inc., NIKE, Inc. and AES Corporation, accept the findings of climate science and have taken actions in support of science-based policy. Other corporations, including Peabody Energy Corporation, Valero Energy Corporation, and FMC Corporation, have worked aggressively to undermine climate policies and have misrepresented climate science to do so.

Several companies stand out for taking contradictory actions on climate change. Caterpillar Inc., for instance, highlights its commitment to sustainability and climate change mitigation on its website. But the company also serves on the boards of two trade groups that regularly attempt to undermine public understanding of climate science: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Caterpillar also funds the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, two think tanks that have misrepresented climate science.

Similarly, ConocoPhillips says on its website that it recognizes human activity is “contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.” But in comments to the Environmental Protection Agency, the company criticized scientific evidence on the ways climate change can harm public health.

Read more

by Alice Thomas

I’m sitting in the mayor’s office in Abala, a town of about 10,000 people in Niger, West Africa. Niger is the poorest of the nine countries that comprise the Sahel, a belt that stretches across northern Africa from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea bounded by the Sahara desert to the north.

Food insecurity and malnutrition are chronic in Niger. But things this year are worse. For the third time in just seven years, Abala and the surrounding areas have been especially hard hit by poor rains and low agriculture yields that have left a mind-boggling 16 million people across the Sahel without sufficient food.

But it is neither the recurrent drought nor the lack of food that has brought me to Abala today. Less than a mile from here, 9,000 Malian refugees are camped. They started coming in January when Tuareg separatist groups, having returned well-armed from Libya, mounted a rebellion in northern Mali.  The Mali refugees who fled to Abala are mainly pastoralists, and many have brought their animals with them. Two thousand head of livestock are now registered at the camp.

I ask the mayor how he feels about the refugees whose population will soon outnumber that of the local inhabitants. “They are our brothers and sisters. We welcome them with open arms. They need our help and we will share with them what we have.”  Given the fragile landscape and scarce resources, I am floored by the conviction and magnanimity of his response.

Getting sufficient food and water to the people of Abala – and the livestock on which many depend for their survival – are significant challenges that existed long before the arrival of the refugees. But now the influx of thousands of new arrivals has put significant additional burden on these host areas. Because there is no potable water in Abala, water has to be trucked in daily to meet the burgeoning demands of the refugees. While aid agencies are in the process of drilling wells in order to provide a local source of water to both refugees and the local community, so far they’ve been unsuccessful, turning up nothing but salty water.

Read more

By Jessica Goad

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. just announced this morning that it is dropping out of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the right-wing corporate front group that drafts and shares conservative legislation with state legislators.  It has been behind various state “stand your ground” gun laws, voter suppression laws and efforts to teach climate change denial in schools.

ALEC has also endorsed various state attempts to “reclaim” federal public lands that belong to all Americans, which could eventually subject them to privatization and development.  As the Associated Press reported:

Lawmakers in Utah and Arizona have said the legislation is endorsed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that advocates conservative ideals, and they expect it to eventually be introduced in other Western states.

In March, Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R) signed an ALEC-backed bill into law that demands Congress turn over 30 million acres of public lands to the state or it will sue.  Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) vetoed similar legislation last month citing costs and dubious constitutionality.

Wal-Mart’s decision to drop ALEC makes sense in the context of their successful “Acres for America” program.  Since 2005, Wal-Mart has partnered with the National Fish and Wildlife Federation in an effort to conserve an acre of land for every one occupied by a Wal-Mart facility.  As of January 2012, the project has protected 687,000 acres.

As Wal-Mart’s corporate website states:

That promise reflected a company-wide dedication to sustainability and stewardship of our natural resources. With an initial $35 million commitment, Walmart expected to enroll an estimated 138,000 acres in the program by 2015. But by the end of 2010, it had far surpassed that benchmark, conserving more than 625,000 acres and connecting more than 6.7 million protected acres—an area larger than Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware combined.

Despite continued corporate defections from ALEC, its efforts to undermine public lands protection may not be over.  In Colorado, a bill has been introduced that would sell 22 million acres of national forests to the highest bidder, although one state representative is considering amending it to merely cede the acreage to the state.  And, similar bills are rumored to be in development in Montana, Idaho, and New Mexico.

As Think Progress reports:

Groups that have dropped ALEC include: Amazon.com, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kraft, Wendy’s,Mars, Inc., Arizona Public Service, the National Board for Professional Teaching StandardsScantron, The National Association of Charter School Authorizers, Kaplan, Procter & Gamble, Yum! Brands, five Pennsylvania legislators, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Reed Elsevier,American Traffic Solutions, Intuit, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

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

The world’s air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant. Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn’t quite a surprise, because it’s been rising at an accelerating pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395. [AP Story by Seth Borenstein]

It’s been at least 800,000 years — probably more — since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s….

Readings are coming in at 400 and higher all over the Arctic. They’ve been recorded in Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Iceland and even Mongolia. But levels change with the seasons and will drop a bit in the summer, when plants suck up carbon dioxide, NOAA scientists said.

“It’s an important threshold,” said Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a scientist who helps lead the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “It is an indication that we’re in a different world.”

Related Post:

• Science: CO2 levels haven’t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher — “We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm.”

An international coalition of nearly 100 people protested outside the Chevron shareholders’ meeting Wednesday in San Ramon. They claim the company is engaging in risky and dangerous operations overseas. [ABC]

My argument is that the same general principles that lead libertarians and conservatives to call for greater protection of property rights should lead them to call for greater attention to the most likely effects of climate change. Libertarians readily accept this principle when government planners violate property rights in the name of economic development (see e.g., Kelo v. New London). Yet they seem to abandon their commitment to property rights when it comes to global warming. [The Atlantic]

In the three years since President Barack Obama took office, Republicans have made the Environmental Protection Agency a lightning rod for complaints that his administration has been too tough on oil and gas producers. But an Associated Press analysis of enforcement data over the past decade finds that’s not the case. In fact, the EPA went after producers more often in the years of Republican President George W. Bush, a former Texas oilman, than under Obama. [AP]

American Electric Power conceded defeat on Wednesday, at least temporarily, in its push to save Big Sandy, its 49-year-old coal-burning plant in eastern Kentucky, surprising state officials there by withdrawing its $1 billion plan to retrofit the power plant so that it can meet tough new federal environmental regulations. [NYT]

A massive wildfire that has burned more than 265 square miles in the Gila National Forest has become the largest fire in New Mexico history, fire officials confirmed Wednesday.
The erratic blaze grew overnight to more than 170,000 acres, surpassing a blaze last year that burned 156,593 acres in Los Conchas and threatened the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the nation’s premier nuclear facility. [WSJ]

by Jill Fitzsimmons, via Media Matters

Following relentless attacks on the solar industry in the wake of Solyndra’s bankruptcy, wind power has become the latest target of the right-wing campaign against renewable energy. But contrary to the myths propagated by the conservative media, wind power is safe, increasingly affordable, and has the potential to significantly reduce pollution and U.S. reliance on fossil fuels.

FACT: Fossil Fuels Pose Far Greater Threat To Wildlife

MYTH: Wind Turbines Are Bird-Killing Machines

• Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld: “Wind power is the Ted Bundy of bird-killers.” [Fox News, The Five, 9/30/11, via Nexis]
• Marc Morano said on Fox News: “We’ve already known that windmills, as you mentioned, are killing birds. Estimates from 400,000 birds a year to almost a million… They’re called bird blenders.” [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/30/12]
• The Hoover Institution’s Deroy Murdock wrote: “The dirty secret about ‘clean’ wind power is that its turbines are giant whirling machetes.” He went on to claim that the Obama administration “wants to give wind-power companies long-term permits to butcher bald eagles on the altar of green energy.” [Washington Times, 5/18/12]
• In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the Manhattan Institute’s Robert Bryce wrote that “as the bird carcasses pile up,” “the wind industry’s unofficial license to kill wildlife is finally getting some serious scrutiny.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/7/12]

NRC: Wind Energy Accounts For “Minute Fraction” Of Human-Caused Bird Deaths. A 2007 report by the National Research Council concluded that wind turbine losses account for “a minute fraction” of bird deaths caused by human activities:

Collisions with buildings kill 97 to 976 million birds annually; collisions with high-tension lines kill at least 130 million birds, perhaps more than one billion; collisions with communications towers kill between 4 and 5 million based on “conservative estimates,” but could be as high as 50 million; cars may kill 80 million birds per year; and collisions with wind turbines killed an estimated at 20,000 to 37,000 birds per year in 2003, with all but 9,200 of those deaths occurring in California. Toxic chemicals, including pesticides, kill more than 72 million birds each year, while domestic cats are estimated to kill hundreds of millions of songbirds and other species each year. Erickson et al. (2005) estimate that total cumulative bird mortality in the United States “may easily approach 1 billion birds per year.”

Clearly, bird deaths caused by wind turbines are a minute fraction of the total anthropogenic bird deaths–less than 0.003% in 2003 based on the estimates of Erickson et al. (2005). [National Research Council, May 2007]

[JR: See also "No wonder they’re angry: 13.7 million birds are dying every day in the U.S."]

Fossil Fuels Drive Climate Change, Which Threatens Hundreds Of Bird Species. A 2008 Department of Energy report noted that wind-related bird deaths cannot compare to the threat of climate change:

Read more