JR: Back in May 2009, Climate Progress predicted that U.S. CO2 emissions had peaked (see “I predict U.S. carbon dioxide emissions peaked in 2007!“). Of course, I had been thinking the U.S. would pass the Waxman-Markey climate and clean energy bill putting a price on carbon, “which will lead to steadily declining coal emissions.”

Ironically, one of the reasons I thought the U.S. would pass a climate bill is that, as I wrote the following month, “unconventional natural gas makes the 2020 Waxman-Markey target so damn easy and cheap to meet.” I didn’t imagine natural gas would become so darn cheap it would get us so far to the 2020 target without a carbon price.  I stand by my original prediction, “that U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions will never exceed 2007 levels.”  I believe this country will have a carbon price within a decade, and maybe considerable sooner if we are homo “sapiens” rather than, say, brainless frogs.

Uber-blogger David Roberts has a chart-filled discussion of some key trends underlying the drop in CO2 emissions over the past 5 years — and why few folks outside of the blogosphere are talking about it. It is reprinted in full below with permission.

U.S. leads the world in cutting CO2 emissions — so why aren’t we talking about it?

By David Roberts, via Grist

Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. is making progress on climate change.

We have cut our carbon emissions more than any other country in the world in recent years — 7.7 percent since 2006. U.S. emissions fell 1.9 percent last year and are projected to fall 1.9 percent again this year, which will put us back at 1996 levels. It will not be easy to achieve the reductions Obama promised in Copenhagen — 17 percent (from 2005 levels) by 2020 — but that goal no longer looks out of reach, even in the absence of comprehensive legislation.

Why isn’t this extraordinary story a bigger deal in U.S. politics? You’d think Obama would be boasting about it! Turns out, though, it’s a little awkward for him, since several of the drivers responsible are things for which he can’t (or might not want to) take credit.

Awkward: that whole recession thing

First off there’s the Great Recession, which flattened electricity demand in 2008. It has never recovered — in fact, in part due to 2011′s mild winter, it has even declined slightly:

For obvious reasons, boasting about the environmental benefits of the recession is not something Obama’s eager to do.

Awkward: frack-o-mania

The second big driver is the glut of cheap natural gas, which is currently trading at the 10-year low of about $3 per million British thermal units. This is absolutely crushing coal, the biggest source of CO2 in the electric sector:

The share of U.S. electricity that comes from coal is forecast to fall below 40% for the year, its lowest level since World War II. Four years ago, it was 50%. By the end of this decade, it is likely to be near 30%.

Here’s U.S. electricity generation from 2000-2012. Look how dramatic coal’s recent plunge is:

Read more

By Tom Wilber, via Shale Gas Review

As head of the Department of Environmental Conservation’s Division of Mineral Resources, Bradley J. Field is a prominent figure in an agency that has promoted hydraulic fracturing as a risk-free and impeccably regulated technology with a proven track record in New York.

Perhaps it’s relevant that Field also sees global warming as a good thing. Field is listed on the Global Warming Petition Project calling for the U.S. to reject international global warming agreements, while claiming there is “no convincing evidence” that manmade greenhouse gases will disrupt the earth’s climate. On the contrary, the petition cites “substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

Field’s support of this global warming refutation was reported in Metroland by Robert H. Boyle, a journalist and activist who criticized Field and his agency for being an industry booster. The article, Field of Distortions, was co-authored by Bruce Ferguson. Given that it lacked comment from Field, I was curious to hear directly from the man who heads the agency that will be in charge of permitting and enforcing shale gas development in New York. I had spoken with Field when I was a reporter for the Press & Sun Bulletin in 2010. At that time, he was defending his agency against assertions by Walter Hang, an activist and head of Toxic Targeting, a firm specializing in documenting pollution. Hang uncovered hundreds of unresolved cases of spills and accidents related to drilling in New York state, contrary to the Mineral Resources Divison’s claim that the state’s record was characterized by “a lack of contamination events” from natural gas development. (More on that further down…) Field, however, is no longer talking to the media, as far as I can tell, and this week he declined an interview with me. I learned from Emily DeSantis, the DEC spokeswoman speaking on Field’s behalf, that “If Mr. Field did sign such a petition, it was in a personal capacity and had no bearings on his professional duties.”

Many will argue, to the contrary, that certain flags go up when a public official who plays a critical role in developing policy on the future of petroleum extraction embraces an ideologically loaded position such as global warming denial. Questions about Field’s pro-industry stance on global warming come as the DEC faces accusations from environmental activists that the agency gave the natural gas industry exclusive and unfair access to draft drilling regulations up to six weeks before they were released to the public or to any other stakeholders. Gas industry representatives purportedly took advantage of this inside information by lobbying to minimize reporting requirements designed to regulate toxic and radioactive runoff from drilling sites. These allegations and other issues will be the focus of a Senate Democratic Conference forum July 18 in New York City, spearheaded by Senator Tony Avella and other elected officials calling for stricter scrutiny of the DEC’s relationship with the oil and gas industry.

So is Bradley J. Field — the person in charge of overseeing and enforcing a new and unprecedented era of on-shore drilling in New York State — a climate change denier? And if so, how much does this matter? I asked DeSantis to ask Field directly if he signed the Global Warming Petition Project in a “personal capacity” as to clear the air. “I did,” she replied: “He does not recall.”

Which brings us to why this matters. The response is exactly the kind of equivocation that has characterized Field’s approach to handling the debate over the merits and risks of shale gas development from the beginning. The agency’s position of record, articulated by Field’s staff at public meetings held throughout the state in the advent of the shale gas development in 2008, is neatly summarized in the following memo to Tom Wilinsky, a resident of Sullivan County. Wilinsky wrote to the department, inquiring about necessary steps to ensure that fracking is done safely. This was in May, 2008, long before any policy had been developed or even proposed to handle shale gas development. Wilinsky received this reply:

Read more

SunDial 28.2 kW mobile solar energy system in Afghanistan

By Gordon Scott and Anusha Narayanan, via the Sierra Club

Over the course of the past half-century, the U.S. military has proven prescient when it comes to developing and implementing new technology. From satellites to microwave technology to the internet to cellular phones, the military has taken the lead on nearly every significant technological advance that has later swept the private and consumer markets.

Now, the military is getting a leg-up on another technology that is poised to lead the next major private-sector revolution – not weapons or communications, but large-scale mobile solar-powered energy systems.

Through a contract with SunDial Capital Partners, the Department of Defense has been implementing a new interface for mobile solar technology. Founded in 2009, SunDial pioneered a system custom-made for on-the-move military operations, harnessing renewable solar energy into a highly mobile unit.  With deep military roots, SunDial President Dan Rice, Vice President Keegan Cotton, and Partner Lee Van Arsdale – all three West Point graduates and combat veterans – recognized a unique market for mobile power supply. As energy prices from traditional fuels rise and the military’s dependence on energy continually grows, SunDial envisioned a new application for existing solar technologies for remote locations.

The Department of Defense and U.S. Special Operations Forces saw strong potential in SunDial’s system, and purchased the company’s first operational models. In 2010, Special Operations Forces began the Mobile Solar Power Initiative, testing the SunDial system at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, and later successfully testing models in the field in Afghanistan.

Testifying before the U.S. Congress about the mobile solar initiative, Admiral Eric Olson, then-Commander of Special Operations Command, said the Special Operations Forces community, “inherently joint in all it does, is in a unique position to leverage and apply Service and Department Science and Technology efforts to rapidly field new technologies on the battlefield.” Often located in the most remote areas where fuel must be airlifted to the point of consumption, Special Operations Forces had the greatest need for renewable energy solutions.

By David Doniger, via NRDC’s Switchboard

This week, the Republican leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is planning to continue its war on Americans’ health by passing two more nasty little bills to weaken public health safeguards under the Clean Air Act.

Over the last 18 months, the Committee and the full House have passed dozens of bills, amendments, and riders to weaken the Clean Air Act and our other environmental laws.  These two bills target the Clean Air Act provisions that, together with the treaty known as the Montreal Protocol, protect the earth’s fragile ozone layer that shields us from dangerous ultraviolet radiation.  By phasing out ozone-destroying chemicals, these safeguards are saving literally millions of Americans from death and disease due to skin cancer, cataracts, and immune diseases.

The first bill, grandiosely-titled “The U.S. Agricultural Sector Relief Act,” actually caters to a small sliver of growers of strawberries and other specialty crops.  It would slow, or even reverse, the transition away from methyl bromide, an ozone-destroying and toxic pesticide that was supposed to have been eliminated seven years ago.  Ironically, the bill would increase crop losses for other farmers whose crops are being damaged by increased ultraviolet radiation from a weakened ozone layer.

The second bill, called “The Asthma Inhalers Relief Act,” is designed to put back on the market a banned inhaler that contains both ozone-destroying CFCs and a drug that the nation’s top asthma doctors consider ineffective and even dangerous.

After a perfunctory hearing Wednesday morning, the Energy and Power Subcommittee plans to “mark up” both bills on Thursday.  If passed by the full Committee, the bills will then go to the floor of the House.  Fortunately, they have little chance of passing the Senate.

Here’s a summary of the testimony I’ll give on the methyl bromide bill at Wdnesday’s hearing (the full testimony is here).  After that, I’ve highlighted testimony from the American Thoracic Society on the inhaler bill:

Read more

The House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands is having a hearing Friday on 3 bills responding to the growing crisis of bark beetles, drought, and wildfires.

The hearing is at 9 a.m. Details are here and below the jump. You will be able to watch it here.

I will live tweet the first panel (the Member panel) here.

Supposedly everyone else will be on one big panel. I have no idea how long  the Member panel will run. I’d guess I’ll be speaking by 10:30, but that can easily be off by 30 minutes or more.

In case anyone doesn’t know what I think about these subjects, you can read:

• My Nature Piece On Dust-Bowlification And the Grave Threat It Poses to Food Security
• Western Wildfires Getting Worse In A Warming World
• We’re Already Topping Dust Bowl Temperatures — Imagine What’ll Happen If We Fail To Stop 10°F Warming

Read more

By Kevin Grandia

According to the Washington Examiner yesterday, President Obama’s campaign team is going “on the offensive to promote [the President's] support for clean coal”.

I am not sure if the article is using “offensive” in the appropriate way when it comes to talking about clean coal. Clean coal is nothing more than a made up marketing phrase that author Jeff Goodell best described:

“Clean coal” is not an actual invention, a physical thing — it is an advertising slogan. Like “fat-free donuts” or “interest-free loans.”

It is PR spin not based in reality and President Obama and his campaign team are playing a part in trying to dupe the public again, much like they did in the 2008 election cycle. Coal is far from clean and no amount of spin or wordsmithing is going to change that.

Here’s ten reasons why:

1. Coal increases rates of disease. The United States burns more than a billion tons of coal each year — that’s 20 pounds of coal for every person in the country, every day.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, as many as 36,000 people a year die prematurely because of pollution from coal-fired power plants. And every year 38,000 heart attacks, 12,000 hospital admissions and an additional 550,000 asthma attacks result from power plant pollution.

2. Coal kills jobs. Despite coal industry claims that coal mining creates lots of jobs, the truth is that coal mining employment has been declining for decades, due to increased use of machinery instead of manpower.

A study last year found that just 56 percent of every 1,000 jobs promised by coal utilities actually materialize. In West Virginia alone, coal mining employment has plummeted from 126,000 miners in 1948 (who produced 168 million tons of coal), to just 15,000 miners employed in 2005 (who, with the help of machinery, produced 128 million tons of coal).

3. Burning coal emits Mercury. Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of human-generated mercury pollution in the U.S. Mercury emissions from electrical generation continues to rise.

Read more

This week, Lew Hay, CEO of Nextera Energy Inc., urged lawmakers to extend the wind production tax credit. While it may not seem surprising that the chairman and CEO of one of the nation’s largest wind and solar developers would support tax relief, it is interesting that Hay believes the program should be phased out in 5-10 years.

Bloomberg News reported on Hay’s comments:

“At some point, every technology should stand on its own, but hitting a cliff I don’t think is smart,” Hay said at a Bloomberg Government breakfast in Washington today. “I don’t see any other industry saying we’re willing to sign up for a reduction and a total phase-out in the tax benefits we get.”

Hay is also chair of the Edison Electric Institute, the advocacy arm of the electric industry.

The wind production tax credit (PTC) provides a credit of 2.2 cents per kilowatt for owners of wind projects. The tax credit helped spur a boom in wind projects and has allowed wind to compete with heavily subsidized fossil energies. The credit is set to expire at the end of this year.

The wind industry says it is urgent that the credit be renewed. The uncertainty of whether the PTC will be extended is already discouraging investment and growth. Many companies in the industry have started laying off workers since they cannot begin new projects without certainty around the PTC. Vestas, a Danish wind turbine manufacturer, has warned that it may lose as many as 1,600 US jobs if the PTC is not extended.

This is not the first time that the wind production tax credit has expired. In 2004, new installed wind power declined by 77 percent when the tax credit was not renewed. Conversely, wind power has developed swiftly with the support of the PTC. In only six years, the total installed wind capacity of the United States went from 5,200 to 48,000 Megawatts.

While opponents of the PTC will say that the program is too expensive to continue, it is important to keep in mind that the wind industry is not looking for an indefinite extension of the program. In fact, by saying the tax credit could be phased out, Hay is showing a lot of faith in the industry.

Heck, even the fossil fuel industry isn’t calling for a phase-out. As Hay put it, “I don’t see any other industry saying we’re willing to sign up for a reduction and a total phase-out in the tax benefits we get.”

If Mitt Romney, the presumed Republican presidential candidate, wins in November, the wind industry will likely see a swift end to support of clean energy, including the wind PTC. Although the PTC has received much bipartisan support, Romney would like to see the credit expire.

In June, Karl Rove (former deputy chief of staff for President George W. Bush) and Robert Gibbs (former White House press secretary for President Obama) came together in support of the wind production tax credit at the Windpower 2012 conference in Atlanta, Georgia.

Other conservative supporters of the PTC include Charlie Bass (R-NH) and wind-state conservatives such as Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Sen. John Thune (R-SD). There is also a bi-partisan coalition of 23 governors (led by Gov. Terry Brandstad (R-Iowa)) that support extending the PTC. Romney’s view on this issue is out of step with many in his party and Americans who support promotion policies for clean energy and environmental protection.

– Nick Richter

by Brendan DeMelle, via DeSmogBlog

“Our Priority is You,” reads the tagline of the Norfolk Constabulary. The rest of the sentence ought to read, “unless you are a climate scientist.”

The Norfolk Constabulary announced yesterday that it has called off its investigation into the criminal hacking of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. The November 2009 breach of servers at the University led to the publication of private emails between climate scientists, an event that climate change deniers whipped up into a phony controversy they called “Climategate.”

As DeSmogBlog has previously reported, the UK police appear to have spent an astonishingly inadequate amount of money and resources on their investigation into the criminal hacking. Now that they’ve given up entirely on finding the perpetrators, there will be many more questions about who should be held accountable for the failed effort.

The Norfolk Constabulary confirmed in its announcement that there is no evidence to support the claims made by climate deniers that the stolen information was released from within the university, noting in the statement that the crime was the “result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet.”

But apparently the UK police have no intention of following through to mete out justice for the crime. We will have a lot more to say about this in the coming days, but for now you can read the full statement released by the Norfolk Constabulary below:

Read more

Droughts such as the one currently gripping a majority of the U.S. may dramatically increase the odds of extremely hot days, a new study found. [Climate Central]

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, explores a dynamic that is playing out right now across the country, particularly in the Great Plains, where the severe drought is priming the atmosphere in favor of an above-average number of extremely hot days.

This occurs because of feedbacks between the ground and the air: as the soil and vegetation dry, more of the sun’s energy is able to go into heating the air directly, rather than going into evaporating moisture from plants and the soil.

With drought conditions intensifying during mid-summer, the study suggests that the U.S. may be in for particularly brutal Dog Days of August.

For many people, a trip to the supermarket has become a perilous journey of navigating aisles of expensive goods and even more expensive goods. And now, it might seem, a villain has been found – weather that has prompted drought conditions and damaged crops in much of the United States. [Los Angeles Times]

The White House recently modified an Environmental Protection Agency proposal to limit soot emissions, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post, inviting public comment on a slightly weaker standard than the agency had originally sought. [Washington Post]

A solar manufacturing plant in North Las Vegas that received millions of dollars in federal grant money closed Wednesday after only 14 months in operation. [Ventura County Star]

Arctic Ready and the accompanying “Let’s Go!” campaign is an elaborate hoax from Greenpeace and The Yes Lab aimed to increase awareness of Shell’s contentious plan to drill in the Arctic. The groups have harnessed social media, online video and gaming in a full-blown assault on Shell, which plans to begin exploratory drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. [Huffington Post]

The average Chinese person’s carbon footprint is now almost on a par with the average European’s, figures released on Wednesday reveal. [Guardian]

New U.S. import tariffs have prompted China’s solar panel makers to buy more expensive supplies elsewhere and avoid the new duties, but prices for the renewable energy equipment continue to decline. [Reuters]