Climate Progress probably has the most widely read headlines and content of any dedicated climate blog in the world. There’s no way of knowing for sure because web statistics aren’t terribly reliable and much of our readership simply cannot be tracked.

Before the initial merger with Think Progress, I wrote a post on May 31, 2011, “… the world’s most viewed climate website.” I pointed out that using the web statistics comparison program favored by the leading denier website (Alexa), Climate Progress had the same number of page views as the site that quotes someone claiming it is “… the world’s most viewed climate website.”

Since then, we merged with TP and then, more recently, Climate Progress subsumed TP Green. The result is our direct page views are up 30% to 50% on most days. The climate disinformation sites have all stagnated (or declined) using their favored Alexa comparison program (and even using Quantcast). As an aside, Alexa is well known to be unreliable (and gamable), so it is the perfect comparison site for the disinformers, who are unconcerned with accurate statistics.

And CP’s measured traffic stats don’t even count the huge number of people who read the content without coming to this website. Some 8,000 people subscribe to the daily e-mail that delivers the previous 24 hours worth of posts —  you can subscribe on CP’s right hand column. Also, since the merger, Climate Progress posts are routinely featured on the front page of Think Progress, which has more than 10 times our daily readership. And we continue to get our best content cross-posted at other highly trafficked websites, like Grist.

It’s not just the new design that has caused the rise in viewership. It’s also the increase in original content. I don’t think it reveals any secrets to say that the more high-quality original content your blog has, the more traffic you will get. We added the estimable Stephen Lacey right before the original merger and then picked up the highly capable bloggers of TP Green, Jessica Goad and Rebecca Leber. And they are on top of the first-rate CAPAF fellows who regularly write for CP.

It’s also clear that CP’s headlines are being viewed by vastly more people than they were before the merger. Headlines are important because they are probably read by 10 to 50 times more people than read the post itself. That’s why good headline writing is so important to blogging, something I discuss at length in my forthcoming book on communications and persuasion.

Social media are a key to getting headlines out. We send CP headlines out as tweets, and we’ve been adding Twitter followers at the rate of about 1000 per month and are nearly at 28,000. More important, retweets have jumped sharply since the redesign. Also, TP often retweets our headlines, and they have a remarkable 130,000 followers. And our Facebook “likes”  have jumped sharply since the merger and particularly since we launched a FB page for Climate Progress.

Again, there is no way of knowing for sure how many people read the headlines — since you’d have to figure out viewership in search engines and content aggregators, too. Indeed, if you want some idea of just how many websites repost CP’s headlines (and sometimes its entire content) just do a Google search using the full headline for one of CP’s more popular posts. There are hundreds and hundreds of content and headline aggregators on the web.

If I had to estimate, I’d say CP headlines are probably read by at least twice as many people as before.

I don’t think it is surprising that the traffic for the disinformer websites is either stagnating or declining, whereas Climate Progress viewership is soaring.

Real science is intrinsically fascinating because it attempts to make sense of observations of the real world. We are dramatically changing the actual climate of the earth, and we are making more extreme many types of weather events that affect a great many people. Reporting on that story and understanding what comes next would be compelling even if it weren’t so consequential. The fact that unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases poses an existential threat to modern human civilization makes this the story of the century, if not the story of the millennium (see “An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts: How We Know Inaction Is the Gravest Threat Humanity Faces“).

Sure, awareness of and interest in climate change may appear to wax and wane over the short term —  especially to pollsters who ask flawed questions (see “Exclusive Bombshell: Experts Debunk Polls that Claim Sharp Drop in Number of Americans Who Believe in Global Warming“) — but it is only going to continue to grow over time as the reality of the threat becomes painfully obvious to all but the most blinkered denier.

The situation for the disinformers is the exact opposite.

Read more

by Melanie Hart

Gallup has just released new poll results showing that a majority of Chinese citizens care more about cleaning up the environment than they do about growing the economy. Among Chinese adults Gallup surveyed last year, 57 percent believe that protecting the environment should be their country’s priority, even if improving environmental standards slows the pace of economic growth. Only 21 percent believe that economic growth is more important than environmental protection.

These poll results reflect a growing trend in Chinese society. As China climbs up the economic ladder, its citizens are increasingly deciding that economic growth is not enough. Being able to buy bigger houses and higher-end consumer goods is nice, but quality of life is about more than purchasing power. Real quality of life also requires good public health. In China, public health is suffering due to rampant pollution, and the citizens are desperate to change that.

Here in the United States, some anti-regulatory politicians like to claim that removing or weakening our environmental standards would make the United States a more prosperous country.

In reality, however, it doesn’t pay to be rich if you can’t be healthy too. No one knows that more than the Chinese. Ask the Chinese citizens living in cancer villages if losing their friends and relatives to cancer is a worthwhile price to pay for the dirty factory that provides jobs but poisons their villages with lead, cadmium, and other carcinogens.

Since China is not a democracy, Chinese citizens cannot vote their local politicians out of office when local governments allow businesses to emit harmful pollutants that put public health at risk. When that happens, the best option Chinese citizens have is to expose the situation through the media and hope someone in Beijing hears their story and decides to intervene.

Talking about environmental problems in China is tricky, however. Technically, the Chinese government encourages journalists to expose pollution scandals. Beijing generally finds that exposure to be useful, because it is hard for them to get accurate environmental data through official channels. They even have special transparency regulations that are supposed to give Chinese journalists access to environmental impact assessments, pollution monitoring results, and other government data.

Although Chinese leaders support exposing pollution problems in most cases, they are not okay with exposure that damages the central government’s image or sparks mass protests. They are, after all, an authoritarian regime. Because of that, they have “state secrets” regulations that make Chinese journalists liable for how citizens react to the stories they publish. If a media exposé about lead pollution sparks a protest, the journalist who wrote the story could go to jail. That means journalists have to self-sensor their environmental coverage, and citizens do not always have an outlet for exposing this information.

Environmental problems are increasingly seen as life-or-death, however. And that means many people in China are deciding they would rather risk going to jail than watch their children suffer irrevocable neurological damage from lead, mercury, and other pollutants.

Read more

by Max Frankel and Stephen Lacey

When we think about air pollution, we often picture busy roads with bumper to bumper car traffic or tall smokestacks releasing plumes of black, sooty smoke — not a roast turkey or a meatloaf.

But a new study out of the UK has found that kitchen appliances, particularly the stove and oven, emit noxious fumes at a rate up to 3 times higher than a busy city street.

The study, done by researchers from the University of Sheffield’s Faculty of Engineering, took measurements from both a rural house and two urban apartments using gas and electric ovens. They tested for harmful pollutants such as Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), Carbon monoxide (CO), Volatile Organic Compounds, and solid particulates small enough to become lodged in the lungs. The NO2 measurements in the apartment with the gas stove well exceeded the UK’s guidelines for indoor pollution and were a full three times higher than the concentrations they found on the street below.

The study is small, but it points to a broader problem of pollution in the built environment.

“We spend 90 per cent of our time indoors and work hard to make our homes warm, secure and comfortable, but we rarely think about the pollution we might be breathing in,” said Vida Sharifi, the professor who led the research.

This has been a major source of discussion within the green building community. As we make our homes and businesses more efficient, what are the consequences of trapping pollutants indoors?

A recent report from the Institute of Medicine looked at the issue:

The outdoor environment permeates indoors in all but maximum-containment laboratory conditions. A building that was tightly sealed as a response to adverse outdoor conditions or because of efforts to reduce energy use might protect occupants from one set of problems but would increase their exposure to another: such buildings tend to have decreased ventilation rates, higher concentrations of indoor-emitted pollutants, and more occupants reporting health problems.

That study was picked up by Fox News as “Green Buildings Hazardous to Health?” As leading green building experts explained, that interpretation was completely wrong. However, it did offer an opportunity to distinguish between an energy efficient building and a truly “green” building that takes a more whole-systems approach to design.

The Rocky Mountain Institute made a great distinction when the report was released:

The issue of buildings and health effects has been studied in detail for many years, and it is well known that energy efficient buildings are not necessarily “healthy.” Ventilation is clearly one area where the two objectives are at odds. Other areas such as daylighting and moisture control are well aligned. These issues simply underscore the need for an integrative design approach to building projects, which enables designers to achieve energy savings as well as many other benefits.

The University of Sheffield study on kitchen emissions is a reminder that we need to think about all forms of pollution — indoor and outdoor — when designing our buildings.

JR: As someone who has researched and written about the benefits of green building design and improving indoor air quality, let me add there is little question that green design boosts both employee health and worker productivity.  As Greg Kats, a former colleague who has studied green building for years has written:

“There have been several hundred peer reviewed studies that document improvements in various aspects of health and productivity and greener more efficient design. Upgrading building energy efficiency typically improves building monitoring and occupant controls, and generally improves indoor air quality, not the other way around.”

by Max Frankel

The U.S. wind market could fall by up to 80 percent in 2013 without an extension of a key tax credit, says the CEO of the world’s biggest wind turbine manufacturer.

According to Ditlev Engel, the CEO of Vestas, allowing the Production Tax Credit to lapse would be devastating for the U.S. market:

“In the United States, the market this year is very, very busy,” Vestas Chief Executive Ditlev Engel told a gathering of EU European affairs ministers and other senior officials at Vestas’ research and development centre.

“But because of the potential lapse of the regulatory framework in the U.S., this market will probably go down 80 percent next year,” he said.”

The Federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) is a 2.2 cent per kilowatt-hour tax credit for renewable electricity producers. It is set to expire at the end of 2012, like it does periodically. The credit was created to allow the wind industry to compete with the fossil fuel industry, which has been supported by numerous permanent tax credits.

Every time the PTC expires, wind development has fallen between 70 and 90 percent.

Engel’s announcement strongly reinforces the prevailing opinion within the industry that the failure of Congress to renew the PTC would decrease investments in wind energy for the coming year as much as 90-100%. In this election year, it seems increasingly unlikely that the PTC will be extended before the end of December.

The effects of the uncertainly around the PTC are already being felt. In April, Everpower Renewables in Ohio, home state of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), said that it would halt plans for a $20 million, 54-turbine wind project that would have created as many as 200 immediate jobs. Ohio is home to between 5,000 and 6,000 wind jobs that could be in jeopardy by Congress’ inaction.

Upwards of 75,000 Americans work in the wind industry. According to an estimation by the economic consulting firm Navigant, up to 37,000 jobs will be lost if the PTC is not renewed. In January, Vestas announced that it would lay off 1,600 American employees if the tax credit is not extended.

Read more

China recently overtook America as the world’s largest consumer of energy — also making it the largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions. Led by China, countries pumped record levels of CO2 into the atmosphere in 2011, setting the world on a path to 11 degree Fahrenheit warming by the end of the century.

If that prospect isn’t worrisome enough, consider this: China’s emissions could be as much as 20 percent higher than previously reported.

According to an international team of researchers, there’s a massive gap between China’s national and provincial emissions figures. And as China’s emissions skyrocket, that gap is growing. In 2010, the difference between the two data sets is 1.4 Gt of CO2 — or roughly the yearly emissions of Japan.

The findings were published in the journal Nature Climate Change:

China’s emission discrepancy in 2010 is equivalent to about 5% of the global total (in 2008) and higher than the CO₂ emissions of the world’s fourth largest emitter—Japan, or the combined emissions of all African countries. The emission gap is mainly due to the inconsistencies of coal consumption between national and provincial statistics. For example, emissions caused by coal consumption contribute 71% of the emission discrepancy in 2010, whereas emissions from petroleum, natural gas and other fuels (including coke oven gas, other gas, other coking products, LPG, refinery gas and other petroleum products) account for 12%, 2% and 14%, respectively. The data situation is better when accounting cement processing emissions, which show a much smaller difference between provincial and national statistics.

This difference in reported data has huge consequences: It makes the job of climate scientists modeling emissions and warming scenarios more difficult; it makes international agreements on emissions cuts more murky; and it makes it harder for China to properly monitor regional cap and trade markets that provinces are beginning to roll out.

Oh, and it means that our current emissions path, which experts already say will have “devastating consequences for the planet,” may be conservative.

Discrepancies in reported pollution data are a common problem in China. Officials in the country have been repeatedly called out for using shoddy methods for measuring air pollution, calling “hazardous, emergency-condition” levels of air pollution “minor.” China’s pollution reporting has been so poor, the government has called on other countries not to release its national air quality data.

The explosion in Chinese carbon emissions is mostly due to a stunning rise in coal consumption. More than 70 percent of the “gap” comes from burning coal. And a growing chunk of that coal is coming from the United States, where producers are looking for new international markets to offset the decline in domestic consumption.

by Ruy Teixeira

When conservatives aren’t talking about cutting taxes for the rich, they’re getting misty-eyed about removing business regulations. Indeed, nothing less than the obliteration of all current restrictions on business would appear to satisfy them. There’s just one problem: The public doesn’t share this commitment.

On the contrary, the public understands that a free market economy needs regulation to serve the common good. And as a matter of fact, that was its verdict by a wide 63-31 margin in the Pew Research Center’s new American Values Survey released in April.

In the same survey, the public called for stricter laws and regulations when it comes to protecting the environment by an overwhelming 74-25 margin.

Conservatives may be convinced that the “magic of the market” obviates the need for laws governing business. But the public clearly does not agree.

Ruy Teixeira is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. This is a CAP cross-post.

Related Posts:

• Gallup: 65% of Americans Support ‘Imposing Mandatory Controls On CO2 Emissions’
• Poll: 75 Percent of Americans Support Regulating CO2 As A Pollutant, 60 Percent Support Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax
• Polling Expert: Is Obama’s Reluctance to Mention Climate Change Motivated by a False Assumption About Public Opinion?
• Independents, Other Republicans Split With Tea-Party Extremists on Global Warming
• Democrats Taking “Green” Positions on Climate Change “Won Much More Often” Than Those Remaining Silent

by Justin Guay, via the Sierra Club

An uneasy ‘social contract’ has long existed when it comes to building new coal fired power plants in the developing world; country’s receive cheap power to fuel development in exchange for accepting environmental and social destruction. This ‘necessary evil’ has been accepted by policymakers despite often fierce protests because other forms of power are considered too expensive. Now, however, this devil’s bargain has broken as the only justification for polluting, destructive coal plants – that they provide cheap power – is a thing of the past.

The most vivid example of the rupture of ‘coal’s contract’ is the four gigawatt Ultra Mega Power Project Tata Mundra. The plant was built with nearly a billion dollars of public money provided by the IFC and the Asian Development Bank for the ‘cheap and reliable’ power it would provide:

“The project will provide a competitive source of electricity to partly reduce the current power shortages and help meet the growing demand for electricity in the country. Cheap and reliable power from the project will help in improving the competitiveness of Indian manufacturing and services industries which have to often rely on expensive standby diesel generation to fulfill their power needs. Competitively priced power will also improve access to electricity in rural and urban areas of the country while reducing the subsidy burden on state governments. Therefore, the project will have significant impact not only in terms of reducing the prevalent demand supply gap but in reducing the average electricity costs in the country leading to improved access and industrial competitiveness…The project will contribute to enhanced access to electricity through supply of cheap and reliable power.”

The reality is this ‘cheap and reliable’ power is anything but as an Indonesian government decision to raise coal export prices effectively doubled the company’s costs. So great is the effect that the project faces a whopping 270% in annual losses, and the CEO has called it ‘financially unviable’. Add to these woes a mountain of foreign debt that must be paid back in dollars while the rupee is at an all-time low and it’s clear the only way the project can be salvaged is if they are let out of their contract and allowed to significantly raise rates on average citizens.

But the problems with Tata Mundra don’t stop there. The truth is they drastically low-balled the underlying fundamentals of the bid they used to win the project which has significantly contributed to their financial woes. Tata Power’s bid was based on fuel (coal) costs that were so out of line with reality that they were literally too good to be true. They were in fact significantly lower than international prices at the time and now thanks to Indonesia they must pay prices triple what they first promised. At the same time the actual cost of construction was premised on costs that were substantially less than bids for other supercritical coal plants in India. Read more

by Dana Nucitelli, via Skeptical Science

Climate contrarians have been busy lately.  In the past few weeks we’ve seen two Gish Gallops from Australian geologists (one of which was extremely politically-charged), a gross distortion of reality from another geologist (this one an American), and now we have yet another politically-charged article from another climate contrarian – Fred Singer, who John Mashey documented was linked to the Climate Research ‘pal review’ scandal through his connections with the ‘pal review’ authors via various fossil fuel-funded political think tanks.

In this case, Singer has written a pro-Mitt Romney (the US Republican Party 2012 presidential nominee) editorial, essentially pleading with Romney to pursue an exclusively fossil fuel-based energy policy.  As we will see here, Singer’s arguments are based on a number of energy-related myths, as well as climate-related conspiracies.

Singer Invokes Inhofe of all People

Although it was somewhat buried in his editorial, we should start off by highlighting Singer’s lone science-related statement, which invoked Senator James Inhofe of all people:

“Romney should speak out on the “hoax” (to use Senator Inhofe’s term) of climate catastrophes from rising CO2 levels.”

As we noted when discussing Ian Plimer’s Gish Gallop and John Mashey’s pal review research, conspiracy theories are one of the five characteristics of scientific denialism, and few people embody the climate conspiracy theory better than James Inhofe.  Thus it’s puzzling why Singer would defer to Inhofe on his only science-related comment in this article.

Regardless, as with his climate contrarian colleagues, Singer is displaying the characteristics of scientific denial here.  Catastrophic climate change consequences are an entirely plausible scenario, and even a highly probable one if we follow Singer’s advice and rely exclusively on fossil fuels to meet our energy needs.

Oil and Gas Prices – Singer Myths vs. Reality

Singer began his letter by arguing that Romney should try to persuade Americans to vote through him by promising low, low prices.

“He should pledge specific goals: Lower gasoline prices; cheaper household electricity; cheaper fertilizer for farmers and lower food prices for everybody; cheaper transport fuels for aviation and for the trucking industry; lower raw material costs for the chemical industry.”

Telling people you will lower their bills is of course a great way to win an election, but in reality the president of the United States has very little control over gasoline prices, which are dictated by international oil market prices.  Singer does not seem to grasp this concept, however:

Read more

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

The High Park fire swept across 20,000 acres with a roar and by Sunday had destroyed at least 18 structures, forced hundreds to flee and spewed smoky plumes that turned the sun blood red and blotted out the Rockies. [Denver Post]

Floodwaters from torrential rains damaged homes and closed roads throughout the Florida Panhandle, cutting power to the county jail and sending residents to emergency shelters as the area braced for additional rains Sunday. [Associated Press]

For American presidents, protecting the country’s last wild places has long been a matter of legacy. President Obama’s record remains largely unwritten. [Washington Post]

The Renault electric Zoe, part of a range of electric cars the French company has to offer has just broken a record, 994.19 miles in 24 hours. [Torque News]

A new analysis highlights the enormous exposure the U.S. has to storm surge-related impacts, which is one of the most significant hazards posed by a land-falling hurricane. [Climate Central]

The doomsday scenario for global warming is as chilling as ever, but in the shadow of economic meltdown there are fears that Rio+20 will just be a talking shop. [The Scotsman]