by Michael Conathan

Earlier this week, Cape Wind—a proposed wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts—quietly turned aside one of its few remaining challenges by coming to a landmark agreement with the Martha’s Vineyard/Dukes County Fishermen’s Association, which had filed a challenge to the project because fishermen feared they would be displaced from traditional fishing grounds. This compromise helps the project move forward, keeps fishermen in business, and shows how a new concept known as ocean-use planning will be fundamental to future management of our ocean space.

As a result of the settlement, Cape Wind agreed to work with the fishermen to ensure they retain access to the area where the wind farm has been permitted and help them set up a permit bank that will own fishing permits for use by Vineyard fishermen in perpetuity.

Think of permit banks like Zipcar for fishermen. A group—fishermen, nongovernmental organizations, or in some cases, states—acquires permits for a fishing area and then leases the affiliated access or quota to eligible participants. Here, participants will be Vineyard fishermen who might otherwise lose their access due to regulators reducing catch limits for certain species rebuilding to sustainable levels. Fewer fish to catch means fewer fishermen can make a living catching them.

Because of geographic and economic realities, the Vineyard’s small fishing fleets operate at a disadvantage compared to their larger counterparts in New Bedford, Gloucester, and other New England ports. So this potential for increased access can help level the playing field and may literally keep their businesses afloat.

In announcing the decision, Warren Doty, president of the Fishermen’s Association, said, “Instead of being on different ends of the fence, we’re going to work together to determine which areas are open to fishing, what areas will be successful for different kinds of fishing, and how to make that fishing safe and available to all fishermen.”

This kind of creative solution, born of committed negotiations between willing and motivated parties, is precisely the kind of outcome proponents of the Obama administration’s National Ocean Policy have in mind when they talk about one of the policy’s signature initiatives: ocean-use planning. The concept, also referred to as coastal and marine-spatial planning, is intended to reduce conflicts among an increasingly diverse and populous contingent of individuals and industries competing for use of ocean space.

The Center for American Progress released a report earlier this week, “The Foundations of a Blue Economy,” which makes the case for investment in and development of industries that generate strong economic return for coastal communities without compromising the environmental quality of our oceans and coasts. The report called out both sustainable fisheries and offshore renewable-energy development as pillars of this strategy, and for them both to succeed the kind of coordination Cape Wind and Vineyard fishermen have displayed must be a key component of the equation.

Cape Wind has run a gauntlet of challenges since its inception in 2001: from the lack of a federal permitting structure, to angry Cape Codders fearing tourism and property values would suffer, to multiple spurious legal challenges. Read more

by Max Frankel

In the last few years, we’ve seen an increase in extreme weather events and environmental disasters — costing us money, and far more importantly, human lives.

Some have been natural (or indirectly caused by humans due to climate change), and others, like BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, have been directly caused by us.

With scientists warning that the frequency of wildfires, floods, drought and other catastrophes will only increase as the planet warms, engineers are now focusing on how to use robots and other mechanical gadgets to aid in disaster response. Some of these bots vacuum up oil, some sort rubble and rescue earthquake survivors, and some help battle wildfires. Here’s a look at three of the coolest robotic defenders, both in use and on the horizon.

Illustration: John MacNeill

Firebug: Right now in Colorado, the Waldo Canyon Wildfire is burning out of control. As of Thursday, 30,000 people had been evacuated and firefighters had only 5% of the blaze contained.

Enter the firefighting robot army. Three groups — one at University of Magdeburg-Stendal in Germany, an American duo, and the makers of the Segway — are all working on a revolutionary and potentially life saving technology.

The German group has plans for an insect-inspired bot called the OLE. The Saint-Bernard sized bugs are covered in fireproof armor and carry sensors that help them find fires. Once they get to the heat source, they can spray it with water or other fire extinguishing materials. The bots have legs instead of wheels, helping them to navigate over downed trees, rocks, and other forest impediments that rolling machines would have trouble with and lets them get to fires faster. (Interestingly, these OLE’s look kind of like Pine Beetles, the ferocious bugs wreaking havoc on western forests.)

Marching into battle alongside the OLE’s (and possibly a lot sooner) could be Segway’s design. Armed with a water cannon that can launch up to 10 gallons per second and Segway’s motors that let it travel up to 18mph, this robot is the heavy artillery of robo-wildfire fighting. Though it’s fast, it’s wheels make it less maneuverable than the OLE; however, this bot has the ability to haul injured or exhausted human firefighters out of harm’s way.

Behind the OLE and the Segway bot, a transformer-like robot could be clearing trees at a frenzied pace, creating the firebreaks that are so vital to containing a blaze. Though the robot looks like something out of science fiction, its creators have already built a prototype. The robot uses its four arms and massive cutting blades to completely deforest an area rapidly. Clearly, these bots could be dangerous for forests if used the wrong way. But in emergency scenarios they could help save thousands of lives and homes.

Read more

Recent warming of the top 2300 feet of the ocean alone corresponds to an energy content of more than one Hiroshima atomic bomb detonation every second over the past 40 years. A new analysis of all the recent data makes clear that this remarkable warming can only be explained with man-made greenhouse gas emissions — JR.

by Dana Nuccitelli, via Skeptical Science

Although over 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, it is often overlooked, particularly by those who try to deny that global warming is still happening.  Nature Climate Change has a new paper by some big names in the field of oceanography, including Domingues, Church, Ishii, and also Santer (Gleckler et al. 2012).  The paper compares ocean heat content (OHC) simulations in climate models to some of the newest and best OHC observational data sets from Domingues (2008), Ishii (2009), and Levitus (2009) which contain important corrections for systematic instrumental biases in expendable bathythermograph (XBT) data.  The paper makes several important points.

• The 0-700 meter layer of the oceans warmed on average 0.022°C to 0.028°C per decade since 1960.

• Climate model simulations which include the most complete set of external forcings – natural (solar and volcanic) and anthropogenic (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols) – are consistent with the rate of warming observed over the past 40 years (see the 20th Century multimodel response including volcanic forcings [MMR VOL 20CEN] and multimodel response including volcanic forcings projected forward using the IPCC SRES Scenario A1B [MMR VOL SRESA1B] in Figure 1).

• The ocean warming observed over the past 40 years cannot be explained without anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions; it is a ‘fingerprint’ of human-caused global warming (Figure 3).

Figure 1: Recent observed ∆T estimates from Domingues et al. 2008 (blue), Ishii et al. 2009 (red) and Levitus et al. 2009 (green) compared with the 20th Century (20CEN) multimodel response (MMR) of phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3) for the subsets of models including volcanic (VOL, black) and no volcanic (NoV, gray) forcings. MMR results are also shown for the CMIP3 SRES A1B scenarios (dashed black and gray), constructed from the same VOL and NoV subsets defined by the 20CEN models. Figure 1c from Gleckler et al. 2012.

Gleckler et al. note that several previous studies have identified a human ‘fingerprint’ in ocean warming; they cite Barnett et al. 2001, Barnett et al. 2005, Pierce et al. 2006, and Palmer et al. 2009.  However, the Gleckler et al. results are more robust because it is the first (and by far the most) comprehensive study to provide an in-depth examination of data and modelling uncertainties, and to use three improved data sets with corrections for instrumental biases (e.g., XBTs) along with a large number of model runs made available by 13 leading modelling centres from around the world (CMIP3 model ensemble).

“Several studies have used well-established detection and attribution methods to demonstrate that the observed basin-scale temperature changes are consistent with model responses to anthropogenic forcing and inconsistent with model-based estimates of natural variability. These studies relied on a single observational data set and employed results from only one or two models.”

Read more

By Brad Johnson, campaign manager of Forecast the Facts

The Obama administration’s Bureau of Land Management auctioned a major tract of Wyoming coal to Peabody Energy at a bargain-basement price of $1.10 per ton yesterday.

The North Porcupine coal tract in the Powder River Basin went to the single bidder, Peabody subsidiary BPU Western Resources, for $793,270,310.80 for 721 million tons, BLM representative Beverly Gorny stated in a telephone interview.

This sale, made under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, represents a massive fossil-fuel subsidy based on the assumption that the use of coal benefits the American public. However, it is likely this coal is intended for the Asian market, where sub-bituminous coal fetches a much higher price. The non-competitive leasing program is under federal investigation.

Moreover, the costs of the carbon pollution from mining and burning this coal were not taken into consideration. The 721 million short tons of sub-bituminous coal in the lease sale will generate approximately 1.1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide when burned. With a modest estimated social cost of carbon at $65 per ton of CO2, the global-warming impacts to society of this lease sale exceed $70 billion — 90 times the price paid for the lease. More than 27,000 people signed a Credo Action petition opposing the fire sale of Wyoming’s sub-prime carbon reserves.

The lease sale still has to be approved by the BLM post-sale panel, which recently rejected a low-ball bid for an adjoining tract.

By Christy Goldfuss

Stories about the recent House transportation bill will likely focus on what was not in the package: the Keystone XL pipeline and coal ash regulations.

However, environmentalists, right-to-know advocates, and community organizers need to take a close look at the section that discusses “Accelerated Decision Making.”  For the first time, but likely not the last, conservative politicians in the House won a major victory in this small section of the bill by including their “streamlining” language, which simply means curtailing the public’s ability to comment on the impacts of transportation projects for communities — including on water, air, and public safety.

The legislation weakens one of our bedrock environmental laws, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which guarantees public participation in reviewing government activities that affect the environment. It was signed into law by President Richard Nixon after passing the Senate by unanimous vote and the House by an overwhelming 372-15 vote.

First, the “Accelerated Decision Making” section of the transportation bill does what has never been done before — fining agencies up to 7% of their fiscal year budget if they do not meet established deadlines for environmental analyses. On the one hand, that means taking more money away from financially strapped agencies trying to accelerate their decision making process about the impacts of a project. On the other hand, it gives agencies an incentive to deny permits in order to avoid the fine.  Neither of these impacts will lead to getting more transportation projects on line faster.

Next, this section of the law expands the type of projects that do not have to go through a public comment and environmental review process at all.  These projects may get less than $5 million in federal funds, but they could still be large in scope.  Regardless of the overall size, the public will not be given an opportunity to comment and the public will not have an opportunity to see how the highway, bridge, or other transportation project will impact their community.

Lastly, this is just the beginning of efforts by House Republicans to “streamline” policies that protect the American public’s health and safety.  The House Committee on Natural Resources has been an incubator for such policy ideas, mostly around oil and gas development. For example, Rep. Doug Lamborn’s (R-CO), “Streamlining Permitting of American Energy Act” (H.R. 4383) purports to get more oil and gas drilling online by impeding  citizens’ ability to exercise their legal right to raise concerns about proposed oil and gas leases by charging $5,000 to do so.

The Transportation Surface Transportation Act is just the first time that House Republicans have been successful in getting this language over the finish line.

Christy Goldfuss is the Director of the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Photo: Tabitha Hawk, via Flickr

by Christina DiPasquale and Michael Conathan

As soon as today, Congress and the White House could issue decisions with massive and opposing ramifications for oceans in distant corners of our country.

The House and Senate are expected to pass a sweeping Transportation bill including a provision to send badly needed dollars to the Gulf Coast that will help communities and ecosystems recover from BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill. The money would comprise 80 percent of the civil fines BP and other responsible parties will have to pay as a result of the 2010 catastrophe, a measure recommended in the CAP-Oxfam report “Beyond Recovery.”

Meanwhile, the Department of Interior is on the cusp of issuing permits for Shell for drilling new oil wells in the Arctic Ocean’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas off the north slope of Alaska. The administration’s justification? As Secretary Salazar stated earlier this week, “I believe there will not be an oil spill.”

The irony of these two actions occurring almost simultaneously proves we are still more inclined to mitigate future disasters than set up the rigorous safeguards that can help prevent them.

Giving Shell the permits needed to commence drilling in the Arctic—an area shown to have extremely limited infrastructure to respond to a potential spill, as detailed in the CAP report “Putting a Freeze on Arctic Ocean Drilling” — is a recipe for yet another disaster for local economies and the environment. The lack of response capabilities in the region becomes clearer when compared to the resources needed in the response to the Deepwater Horizon spill (view CAP’s map here).

So while we’re doling out billions to the Gulf to help mop up, we’re simultaneously setting ourselves up for the possibility of another failure in a region where we have virtually no resources for cleaning up a spill. Admiral Robert Papp, the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, explained the situation in a June 2011 Senate hearing:

“Our current Arctic capabilities are very limited…. Imagine if we had to mount a major pollution response—we would have to create our own infrastructure… Although private industry may assert they are adequately prepared for a response to a spill, we must determine what response capability our Coast Guard and Nation needs to have so we can mount an adequate response as exploration advances towards production.”

In addition to Admiral Papp’s warning, businesses have indicated their skittishness about investing in or insuring oil exploration in the region. German bank WestLB announced they would not provide financing to any offshore oil or gas drilling ventures in the area, declaring the “risks and costs are simply too high.” A week earlier, the insurance giant Lloyd’s of London concluded that offshore drilling in the Arctic would “constitute a unique and hard-to-manage risk” and advised companies to “think carefully about the consequences of action.”

With the nearest permanent Coast Guard facility over 1,000 miles away, no major roads, railroads, or ports along the North Slope, and extreme and unpredictable weather patterns, any coordinated response effort would be daunting.

Communities across Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas — all too familiar with the economic and environmental price of insufficient response plans — are close to receiving badly needed funding to rebuild their economy and environment from fines paid by BP and other companies. The money, which could be as much as $16 billion, will then be invested in projects and activities that restore the long-term health of the Gulf Coast ecosystems and coastal economies.

Unfortunately, the transportation bill fails to address the strain put on government funds once the liability limit (or polluter’s ability to pay) has been reached. Though BP will not invoke the set $75 million liability cap for the Gulf disaster, Congress leaves the door open for other polluters to do so in the future, ignoring the Government Accountability Office’s 2007 and 2010 reports which both found “the liability limits for certain vessel types may be disproportionately low compared with their historic spill cost.”

At least now we know that there’s a precedent. If a spill wrecks the pristine Arctic and endangers the environment, culture, and very existence of the North Slope’s Alaska native communities, they may be first in line for a big payout to help clean up. Assuming we can ever figure out exactly how to do it.

Christina DiPasquale is an Associate Director for Press Relations at the Center for American Progress; Michael Conathan is Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress.

A round-up of the top climate and energy news.

Britain is burning more now than at any time since 2006, despite official promises to move to greener fuels. [The Sun]

Imports are up 20 per cent to 18 million tons this year — with coal responsible for generating 42 per cent of all UK electricity, the Department of Energy says.

Gina Rinehart, the multi-billionaire iron ore magnate, is on the verge of becoming its newest media mogul. Ms Rinehart appears to want “to make the papers into a propaganda platform for mining companies and climate change deniers”, said David Marr, one of the Herald’s most respected writers. [The Independent]

An historic heat wave that has helped create tinderbox conditions in Colorado and other Western states is moving east, with record-breaking temperatures expected in at least 13 states Thursday, from Oklahoma to Ohio. [Climate Central]

A Colorado-based solar panel maker that received a $400 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration said Thursday it will file for bankruptcy, the latest setback for an industry battered by the recession and stiff competition from companies in China. [Associated Press]

If the climate were neither warming nor cooling, one would expect that on average, low-temperature records would be broken as often as high-temperature ones. In the last decade, high-temperature records have outnumbered low-temperature records by a ratio of 2 to 1. [New York Times]

The government needs to multiply investment in clean energy four-fold to avoid breaking laws on renewables and climate change, official advisers say. [BBC]

European cities are planning to adapt to climate change as the risks become more severe, a report by UK-based emissions measurement organization the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and consultancy Accenture showed on Thursday. [Reuters]