By Jessica Goad

As the New York Times reported last month, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a right-wing corporate front group, has been behind various efforts to enact watered down state regulations for the natural gas drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

The Times noted that ALEC’s model legislation being shopped to state legislators was sponsored by Exxon Mobil. And now, new documents show how Exxon’s donations to ALEC match up with the timing of the development of fracking legislation.

According to Exxon’s 2011 corporate giving report, ALEC was listed as the recipient of $86,500:

American Legislative Exchange Council, Washington, D.C.

-  General Support:  74,000

-  ALEC States and Nation Policy Summit:  12,500

The “ALEC States and Nation Policy Summit,” to which Exxon gave $12,500, took place in Scottsdale, Arizona, in December 2011.  And according to both the Times and an ALEC blog, the hydraulic fracturing disclosure language was approved by the organization as a model bill in December 2011.

At issue is whether natural gas companies should be required to inform the public about the type of chemicals being pumped underground to facilitate the extraction of gas. Some of those chemicals are known or suspected carcinogens.  At first glance Exxon and ALEC’s sponsorship of fracking disclosure laws seems commendable; however, a closer glance reveals that the legislation actually contains serious loopholes for companies wanting to protect “trade secrets.”

Ohio is “in the final stages” of enacting regulations address hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure. But as Connor Gibson at Nation of Change notes:

At least 33 of the 45 Ohio legislators who co-sponsored SB 315 are ALEC members, and language from portions of the state Senate bill is similar to ALEC’s “Disclosure of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Composition Act.”

Exxon is the largest producer of natural gas in the country, a position solidified after its purchase of natural gas company XTO in 2010.

Figure 1. Difference between the number of melt days in 2011 and the average number of melt days during the period 1979 – 2010. Large sections of the island experienced twenty more days with melting conditions than average. Image: Arctic Report Card.

by Jeff Masters, via the WunderBlog

The record books for Greenland’s climate were re-written [last] Tuesday, when the mercury hit 24.8°C (76.6°F) at Narsarsuaq, Greenland, on the southern coast. According to weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera, this is the hottest temperature on record in Greenland for May, and is just 0.7°C (1.3°F) below the hottest temperature ever measured in Greenland. The previous May record was 22.4°C (72.3°F) at Kangerlussuaq (called Sondre Stormfjord in Danish) on May 31, 1991. The 25.2°C at Narsarsuaq on June 22, 1957 is the only June temperature measured in Greenland warmer than yesterday’s 24.8°C reading. Wunderground’s extremes page shows that the all-time warmest temperature record for Greenland is 25.5°C (77.9°F) set on July 26, 1990.

The exceptional warmth this week was caused by the combination of an intense ridge of high pressure and a local foehn wind, said the Danish Meteorological Institute. The unusual May heat has extended to Scotland, which had its hottest May temperature on record on May 25 at Achnagart: 29.3°C (85°F). Greenland’s Narsarsuaq has seen a string of 3 consecutive days over 70°F this week–the 3rd, 7th, and 12th warmest days there since record keeping began in 1941. The ridge of high pressure responsible is expected to stay in place several more days, bringing additional 70° days over Southern Greenland. The warm May temperatures could be setting the stage for a big Greenland melt season this summer–the International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI) is predicting a 50 – 60% that the southern 2/3 of Greenland will experience above-average temperatures this summer. They forecast just a 10 – 15% chance of below-average temperatures.

Why Greenland is important

If the massive icecap on Greenland were to melt, global sea level would rise 7 meters (23 ft).

Read more

by KC Golden, via Getting a Grip

Dad, isn’t Jim Hansen that NASA mega-whiz you call “America’s pre-eminent climate scientist,” which is like geezerese for the smartest guy in the room?  And what is brain dude thinking when he says “Game over for the Climate”?

“Game”? You call this a game?  When losing it means “billions of people will be condemned to poverty and much of civilization will collapse”?  K. Ceee, I know you’re super-busy but I need you to pay attention.

Which part of this sounds like a game to you?  The billions?  The people?  The poverty?  The civilization?  The collapse?  Daaad, back away from the smartphone.  I mean it.  Focus!  You can’t just go “game over for the climate…  New game!”… like there’s an app for what happens after you lose this one.

Dad, dude, Angry Birds is a game.  Climate disruption is just dumping on your kids’ head.  Are you laughing?  Because if you’re laughing, I can find an assisted living facility in Siberia.  Don’t push me.

Maybe it feels like a game, since you’ll probably kick the bucket before all this collapsing goes down. You’re kinda playing with other people’s money, huh?  But when it’s your kids’ money, aren’t you at least supposed to act serious?

And even if it were a game, y’oldsters have a lot of nerve calling it “over.”  Dad, you’ve been lacing up your shoes and picking your noses for decades.  Did I miss the part where you actually got in there and started playing?  ‘Cause sitting here thinking about the horror show of a future you’re cookin up, I’m seeing zero game.

What I do hear is a lot of yap:  “It’s not happening.”  “It’s happening but we’re not causing it.” “We’re causing it but soon it will be China’s fault.”  “It’s too big, too complicated.”  “Somebody’s gonna screw the future so we might as well get the jobs.” All kind o’ of bob and weave and shuck and jive.  But “game”?  You got some game Pops?.  Well bring it then! Cuz “game over” just sounds like the beginning of your next lame excuse for failing to deal.

OK, yeah, I get it.  Jim Hansen is warning about “game over” for the right reason – to kick your sagging kiesters into gear before it’s too late.  ‘Preciate that.

But listen, Pop, you don’t have a cane to lean on when you start croaking “game over.”  It’s no game, and it is never over.  Whatever you do now to improve the situation is crap I don’t have to shovel later.  So quit crying in your beer and DO STUFF.

Get in the game Dadddyyy, ’cause when it’s “over” for you, it’s on for me.

KC Golden is the Policy Director at Climate Solutions. This piece was originally published at the Getting a Grip on Climate Solutions blog and was re-printed with permission.

Global warming will force a reduction in nuclear and coal electricity generation over the coming decades as a decline in freshwater resources makes it more difficult to cool thermoelectric power plants, say researchers.

A new study published today in the journal Nature Climate Change projects that thermoelectric generation could fall by 4.4 to 16 percent in the U.S. between 2031 and 2060 due to a lack of adequate cooling water. Thermoelectric plants make up roughly 90 percent of the U.S. electricity mix — sucking up 40 percent of the nation’s freshwater supplies.

The researchers also projected a steeper decline in Europe, which could see a 19 percent dip in generation.

For cooling-water use, the combination of decreases in low river flows and increases in (especially high) water temperature is problematic. We used daily water temperature projections to calculate the mean number of days per year that water temperature is predicted to exceed the inlet limits of river water for cooling water use of 23 °C (Europe) and 27 °C (US). The increase in the number of days per year with water temperature exceeding 23 °C is generally highest for southern Europe (median of 44–48 (59–82) days per year for B1–A2 scenario for the 2040s (2080s) relative to 23 days for 1971–2000). The same magnitude of increase in number of days with water temperatures exceeding 27 °C is found for the south and southeastern US. Combined with projected decreases in low river flows of more than 25% in these regions, cooling-water problems are expected to be exacerbated substantially in the future.

The researchers also found that the likelihood of “extreme reductions” in electricity production of 90% or more at plants could increase by three-fold.

This emerging conflict is just one more headache for the ailing nuclear and coal industries in the U.S.

It’s been 16 years since a nuclear power plant was built in America. Southern Company is currently constructing a new plant in Georgia; however, the company recently reported that the project — once hailed as the start of a “renaissance” in nuclear — will cost almost $1 billion more than expected.

The coal industry has seen a steep decline in production, falling from 44.6 percent of U.S. electricity generation to 36 percent in just one year. A combination of aging infrastructure, cost-competitive renewables, new clean air regulations, and a strong anti-coal movement are quickly reducing the attractiveness of coal.

A warming planet will only accelerate the problems faced in these industries. The decline in adequate cooling water resources will force longer shutdowns, thus increasing the cost of electricity and raising more local environmental conflicts.

by Bill McKibben, via TomDispatch

It’s been a tough few weeks for the forces of climate-change denial.

First came the giant billboard with Unabomber Ted Kacynzki’s face plastered across it: “I Still Believe in Global Warming. Do You?” Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, the nerve-center of climate-change denial, it was supposed to draw attention to the fact that “the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” Instead it drew attention to the fact that these guys had over-reached, and with predictable consequences.

A hard-hitting campaign from a new group called Forecast the Facts persuaded many of the corporations backing Heartland to withdraw $825,000 in funding; an entire wing of the Institute, devoted to helping the insurance industry, calved off to form its own nonprofit. Normally friendly politicians like Wisconsin Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner announced that they would boycott the group’s annual conference unless the billboard campaign was ended.

Which it was, before the billboards with Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden could be unveiled, but not before the damage was done: Sensenbrenner spoke at last month’s conclave, but attendance was way down at the annual gathering, and Heartland leaders announced that there were no plans for another of the yearly fests. Heartland’s head, Joe Bast, complained that his side had been subjected to the most “uncivil name-calling and disparagement you can possibly imagine from climate alarmists,” which was both a little rich — after all, he was the guy with the mass-murderer billboards — but also a little pathetic.  A whimper had replaced the characteristically confident snarl of the American right.

Read more

Hundreds of species of unique South African plants may be affected by increasing drought. Credit: Kary Johnson

This post comes from the National Science Foundation

Warming climate may mean less rainfall for drought-sensitive regions of the Southern Hemisphere, according to results just published by an international research team.

Geoscientist Curt Stager of Paul Smith’s College in Paul Smiths, N.Y., and colleagues found that rainfall in South Africa during the last 1,400 years was affected by temperature–with more rain falling during cool periods and less during warm ones.

The findings, published in the journal Climate of the Past, are supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

“The link between climate change and rainfall in certain latitudes can have large effects on ecosystems,” said Paul Filmer, program officer in NSF’s Directorate for Geosciences.

“Plants, for example, may be able to grow in a wider area, or conversely, be squeezed up a mountain or onto a peninsula. When the affected ecosystem supports a food crop, that can mean a bonanza–or a famine.”

Theoretical climate models have shown that global warming could push storm tracks southward “and away from the mainlands of southern Africa, South America and Australia,” said Stager.

“This research supports those predictions of increasing aridity, which could lead to major problems for societies and ecosystems in these already-arid places.”

Read more

by Shauna Theel, via Media Matters

The Prius is now the world’s third best-selling car line, but before it became a clear success story, it was the target of attacks from conservative media similar to those now being leveled against electric vehicles.

In 2000, the year the Prius was released in the U.S., Diane Katz and Henry Payne wrote at the Wall Street Journal that hybrid cars are not “what the public wants.” The next year, the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels declared the Prius would “never” deliver a profit for Toyota and hyped how “demand has been weak” for hybrids. That these conservative pundits have clearly been proven wrong with time is a lesson for today’s pundits who suggest that current electric car sales mean that electric cars will never be successful. As Bloomberg reporter Jamie Butters noted in a video report, “a lot of people will criticize the sales of the Chevy Volt by GM or the Nissan Leaf, but when you really look back they’re selling at significantly higher opening volumes than the Prius when it came out 15 years ago.”

Even after Prius sales had significantly ramped up, conservative media were still downplaying the market for hybrids in the U.S. In 2004, a Fox News guest declared that “Americans don’t want hybrids”:

JOHN GIBSON: What about hybrids? Is it true that Americans desperately want hybrids and get better gas mileage and be kinder to the environment, or is that sort of environmentalist propaganda?

DAVID NAUGHTON, NEWSWEEK: Americans don’t want hybrids. That’s not true at all. Americans are buying a few hybrids, but Hummer outsells the Toyota Prius by two to one. And even Toyota sells as many Camrys in a couple of months as they will an entire year of Prius.

It gets a ton of attention. It’s a technological marvel, but as long as gas is $1.50 a gallon in this country, people don’t want green cars. They want big cars; they want SUV’s. [Fox News, The Big Story with John Gibson, 1/6/04, via Nexis]

That same year, The Weekly Standard‘s Henry Payne called tax incentives for hybrid vehicles a “sweet bonus for upscale customers like Arianna Huffington and Cameron Diaz.” The criticism is strikingly similar to the conservative narrative that electric car subsidies only benefit the rich, when in fact tax incentives help make electric vehicles available to the middle class, just as they did with the Prius.

Read more

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

The government of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is rewriting the nation’s environmental laws to speed the extraction and export of oil, minerals and other materials to a global market clamoring for Canada’s natural resources. [Washington Post]

The government of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is rewriting the nation’s environmental laws to speed the extraction and export of oil, minerals and other materials to a global market clamoring for Canada’s natural resources….

“The idea is simple and straightforward: to make Canada the most attractive country in the world for resource investment and development, and to enhance our world-class protection of the environment today for future generations of Canadians,” said Christopher Plunkett, spokesman for the Canadian government in the United States.

Rick Smith, executive director of the advocacy group Environmental Defence Canada, calls it “a war on nature and democracy.” At least 500 Canadian organizations, along with several hundred in the United States, will darken their Web sites or publish notices Monday to protest the changes as part of a “Black Out, Speak Out” demonstration.

“This is the most anti-environmental legislation we’ve seen in decades,” Smith said. “Very clearly, a lot of these changes are designed to expedite inappropriate pipeline proposals. It’s essentially a big gift to Big Oil.”

Plants and shrubs have colonised parts of the Arctic tundra in recent decades growing into small trees, a scientific study found, adding the change may lead to an increase in global warming pressures if replicated on a wider scale. [Reuters]

The government has been trying to water down key environmental regulations in Brussels despite trumpeting its commitment to green issues at home, leaked documents show. [Guardian]

Years of ferocious storms have threatened to gnaw away the western tip of a popular beachfront park two hours drive north of Los Angeles. Instead of building a 500-foot-long wooden defense next to the pier to tame the tide, the latest thinking is to flee. [Washington Post]

After recalculating data, climatologists have declared that Oklahoma last year suffered through the hottest summer ever recorded in the United States — not Texas as initially announced last fall. [New York Times]

If you miss this year’s synchronized firefly display in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, you can blame it on freakishly warm spring weather, perhaps linked to predicted weather extremes caused by global warming. [Summit County Citizens Voice]

Natives downstream from the oilsands in northern Alberta say they have caught more deformed fish in Lake Athabasca and will be sending them away for testing. [The Canadian Press]