When will the madness stop? In a piece titled, “Nearly Half Of Corn Devoted To Fuel Production Despite Historic Drought,” Bloomberg editorialized:

Record-high corn prices should be sending a clear message to policy makers in Washington: Requiring people to put corn-based fuel in their gas tanks is a bad idea.

Climate Progress has been saying the same for many years (see “The Fuel on the Hill” and “Let them eat biofuels!“). Bloomberg notes:

The damage is far-reaching. Beef and pork producers are slaughtering their stocks at a record pace to cut use of corn feed that costs two-thirds more than three months ago. This week, President Barack Obama told a campaign rally in Iowa that the federal government will buy $170 million of meat to prop up the market. U.S. cattle herds next year are forecast to be the smallest since 1952, a guarantee of more expensive food in years to come.

Researchers at Texas A&M University have estimated that diverting corn to make ethanol forces Americans to pay $40 billion a year in higher food prices. On top of that, it costs taxpayers $1.78 in subsidies for each gallon of gasoline that corn-based ethanol replaces, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Burning some 40% of the U.S. corn crop was crazy enough before the record drought, but now it is just plain inhumane. As uber-hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham put it this month:

Our ethanol policy is becoming the moral equivalent of shooting some poor Indian farmers.  Death just comes more slowly and painfully.

What is this drought doing to the breakbasket of the world? AFP reported Tuesday:

US corn and soybean prices closed at new record highs Tuesday as a new survey showed worse-than-expected crop damage from a brutal drought across the country’s central breadbasket…..

“Crops in western Ohio and eastern Indiana were far below the norm,” said Pro Farmer analyst Brian Grete.

Yields in South Dakota meanwhile were called “stunningly low.”

And remember, while this drought may be a record-setter now, if we keep taking no action to reduce carbon pollution, it’ll be the normal climate by my mid-century.  By then, humanity will be desperately trying to figure out how to feed another 2 billion people while dealing with extreme weather beyond anything humans have experienced during the period large-scale farming that (barely) fed ever-growing populations. See “Climate Story of the Year Decade: Warming-Driven Drought and Extreme Weather Emerge as Key Threat to Global Food Security.”

As an aside, conservatives like to claim that it is environmentalists who gave us our current biofuels policy, but in fact I never have met an environmentalist who thought we should mandate anywhere near the current amount of corn ethanol.

The only reason environmentalists and clean energy advocates even tolerated energy deals with corn ethanol mandates is the hope that jumpstarting the infrastructure for corn ethanol would pave the way for next-generation cellulosic ethanol.  That turned out to be a mistake (see “Are biofuels a core climate solution?“).

We have gone far beyond what is tenable.  Yes, the energy-intensive nature of food production means that oil prices will tend to rise in tandem with food prices, thus increasing the profitability of biofuels.  And yes, we are a rich country, the  breadbasket of the world, politically far more impervious to higher food prices than higher oil prices.

But as population grows, developing countries’ diets change, and the extreme weather of the last couple of years increasingly becomes the norm in a globally warmed world, food insecurity will grow and our biofuels policy will, inevitably, collapse.  It must.

Related Post:

• “The Corn Ultimatum: How long can Americans keep burning one sixth the world’s corn supply in our cars?“

By Jessica Goad

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney today released his energy plan with a speech in New Mexico.  One of the most controversial pieces of the plan would give states control over energy development on federal public lands, a policy that would likely allow energy companies more access to them, allow bypassing of federal public health and environmental safeguards, and decrease certainty for companies and the public.

It is an extreme proposal, especially from a candidate who admitted that he did not know the “purpose of” public lands.  But an analysis of Romney’s top energy advisers, donors, and the ideas of the American Legislative Exchange Council may shed some light on the origins of this proposal.

A number of advisers and donors close to Romney own oil and coal leases on public lands, showing their business interest in opening these places to development:

-  Romney’s top energy advisor is oil baron Harold Hamm, who made his $11 billion fortune developing shale oil in North Dakota.  His company, Continental Resources, has permits to drill for oil on public lands, some of which were approved as recently as this month in Montana and North Dakota.  Hamm also has given $1 million to Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney super-PAC.

-  Another Romney energy advisor is ex-Senator Jim Talent (R-MO), a lobbyist who has Peabody Energy, one of the nation’s biggest coal producers, amongst his firm’s clients.  Peabody and its subsidiaries have coal leases on federal lands in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana, and just yesterday paid only $0.25 per ton, or $750,000, for the rights to mine more than 3 million tons of publicly-owned coal.

-  Bill Koch, brother to Charles and David Koch, has given at least $2 million to Restore Our Future.  A subsidiary of Koch’s company, the Oxbow Corporation, owns and operates the Elk Creek coal mine on public lands in Colorado which is expanding its operations.

Romney’s plan to turn over decisions about energy development on federal lands to the states also recalls similar proposals promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a right-wing corporate front group that designs pro-corporate legislation for state legislators and is funded by the likes of Exxon Mobil, Shell, and Koch Industries.

Read more

Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO)

FORT GARLAND, Colorado — Man-made climate change may be helping to devastate the western half of the country with droughts and wildfires, but acknowledging its existence is problematic because it would “divide America,” according to a leading Tea Party congressman.

In an interview with ThinkProgress, Scott Tipton (R-CO) conceded that climate change exists, but argued that it’s caused by natural climate cycles rather than humans. “Here in the state of Colorado as our tree rings demonstrate, we’ve had droughts long before there were very many people here,” the Tea Party freshman argued. Acknowledging that humans can affect the climate is futile because it would “divide America,” said Tipton.

KEYES: The drought’s obviously been a huge issue not only in Colorado but the western half of the country. Is this something that you think is evidence of human-caused climate change or is this something that’s just normal weather?

TIPTON: Is there climate change? I live in the shadow of some of the greatest climate change the world has ever seen. It’s called the Rocky Mountains. When the glaciers went back.

KEYES: Human-caused climate change.

TIPTON: I think we need to be very cautious in trying again to divide America. You’re either for or against. Let’s do things responsibly. Let’s make sure we’ve got great technology now that we’re able to take advantage of. Do we have cycles that we’ve gone through? The rings on the trees tell us so. That does not absolve us of the responsibility of just being responsible and making good, common-sense decisions. Here in the state of Colorado as our tree rings demonstrate, we’ve had droughts long before there were very many people here.

Listen to it:

The Centennial State has acutely felt the impact of human-caused climate change this year. Global warming makes every drought and heat wave worse. The most destructive wildfire in Colorado history occurred earlier this year, fueled in part by an the worst drought in a decade and one of the warmest periods in state history.

Congressmen like Tipton argue that these are simply natural weather patterns, ignoring nearly all scientific evidence to the contrary, at their state and country’s peril.

Related Posts:

• James Hansen Is Correct About Catastrophic Projections For U.S. Drought If We Don’t Act Now
• U.S. southwest could see a 60-year drought like that of 12th century — only hotter — this century

Workers at TPI Composites in Newton, Iowa walk between wind blades. Photo: Stephen Lacey

Chaz Allen is the exact type of voter that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama would love to win over in the fall.

A registered Independent, Allen’s political views range across the political spectrum. As a moderate fiscal conservative, he’s concerned about some of the spending measures proposed by Democrats. As a moderate on social issues, he believes that Republicans have become too polarizing on gay marriage and abortion.

But for Allen, there’s one really big issue that could influence his vote for president: Wind.

Allen is mayor of Newton, a town in central Iowa that represents one of the most visible and uplifting stories on the economic impact of domestic wind manufacturing. And as someone who’s seen the enormous jobs benefits from the wind industry, he’s increasingly worried about a key federal tax credit for the industry set to expire at the end of this year.

Romney says he wants to immediately end the tax credit; Obama has been pushing Congress to renew it.

“This is a very big deal for us,” says Allen, leaning back behind his desk at his office in City Hall. “There are a lot of issues that people will be voting on. But for us here in Newton — and a lot of other communities around Iowa — this one really sticks.”

Newton has received a lot of attention in recent years because of its dramatic economic turnaround helped by the wind industry. Obama even campaigned here in May. For 115 years, the town was home to the headquarters of appliance manufacturer Maytag Corporation, which at one point employed 4,000 workers in a town of 15,000. But over the years, as the company declined in health, local jobs were shed. By 2006, the company was sold to rival company Whirlpool, operations were consolidated, and the Maytag facility was closed. Nearly 1,800 jobs were lost.

In 2007, after Allen came into office, the town embarked on a “team effort” with the state and federal government to attract businesses in the rapidly growing wind industry. It worked. Soon after, the turbine blade manufacturer TPI composites and the wind tower producer Trinity Structural Towers moved to Newton, helping create more than 950 manufacturing jobs. Trinity even opened up its operations in the old Maytag plant.

“Bringing in these companies, it was like hitting the lottery,” says Allen, smiling. “Wind is about jobs for us.”

Driven by improving economics, strong state targets, and a federal production tax credit that provides wind farm owners with 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, the Midwestern market exploded in the mid-2000′s. Today, Iowa gets 20 percent of its electricity from wind, has up to 7,000 jobs in the industry, and has brought in $5 billion in private investment over the last three decades.

But now, communities and companies in wind states across the country are concerned about the expiration of the federal production tax credit at the end of the year.

Since this federal tax incentive was put in place for the the technology in the 90′s, the wind industry has been able to drop installation costs by 90 percent, according to the American Wind Energy Association. However, with natural gas prices at historic lows due to a glut of supply and many states reaching the upper limits of their renewable energy targets, the wind industry says that another extension of the tax credit is needed to continue momentum.

Unlike permanent tax credits for oil and gas producers, the production tax credit is only extended on a short-term basis, making long-term investment decisions difficult. As a result, wind installations are expected to crash in 2013.

Read more

After raising nearly $10 million in Texas oil money in two days, Mitt Romney announces an energy plan on the Texas-New Mexico border later today that includes billions of dollars in giveaways to industry contributors.

Romney will call for extensive expansion of oil and gas drilling – including along the coasts of Virginia and the Carolinas – and eliminating most federal safety and environmental standards that govern the development of energy resources on our public lands.

This corporate polluter agenda should come as no surprise, as the Washington Post noted:

“Romney’s plan caters heavily to oil and coal interests, and oil executives are some of his biggest benefactors.”

Romney’s energy team is comprised of oil and coal industry insiders, from oil billionaire Harold Hamm, the chair of Romney’s energy policy team – and $1 million donor to the conservative Restore Our Future Super PAC — to coal lobbyist Jim Talent, as well as retreads from the George W. Bush administration. Politico described it as “Bush energy advisors going to Romney.”

The Romney-Ryan plan once again claims mysterious “trillions” of dollars in government revenue; however, a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis found that their proposals would bring in only limited federal revenues over the next decade. Instead, the Romney-Ryan energy plan includes billions of dollars of tax breaks to corporate polluter allies, access to lands and waters owned by all Americans, and fewer restrictions on mercury, toxic, and carbon pollution.

Here are five facts about the Romney-Ryan “oil above all” energy strategy you ought to know in advance of his energy speech in New Mexico today.

1. The Romney-Ryan plan gives the big five oil companies a $2.3 billion tax cut above and beyond existing tax loopholes

Both Romney’s plan and the House-passed Ryan budget would retain $2.4 billion in annual tax breaks for the big five oil companies – BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell – that made a record $137 billion in profits last year, and over $60 billion so far in 2012. Perhaps more outrageous is that the Romney-Ryan proposed cut in the corporate tax rate would provide a $2.3 billion tax cut for the big five oil companies. With the existing tax breaks, the big five companies would skim over $4 billion annually from the U.S. Treasury.

2. Romney plan gives Americans’ lands and waters to dirty energy interests

Romney also proposes the extreme idea of giving states control over energy development on America’s public lands.  This is a misguided proposal that would end the tradition of managing lands that belong to the entire country for the wide array of resource values to “meet the present and future needs of the American people.” Instead, on a state by state basis these unparalleled national assets – including national parks – could be turned over to energy companies, making energy development the primary use of the land, at the expense of grazing, hunting, fishing, and all other forms of recreation. A similar proposal was too radical even for arch conservative Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. She vetoed a bill turning all federal lands over to her state.
Read more

by Daniel Souweine, via Grist

This week in Boston, Mass., the nation’s broadcast meteorologists will meet in their yearly conference sponsored by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). You probably don’t have it marked on your calendar, but from the point of view of the planet, it’s the most important meeting of weather reporters in history. Because the burning question in Beantown is whether weathercasters will embrace their responsibility to communicate how climate change is creating a new normal of dangerous, extreme weather.

Given the climate change-fueled storms, heat waves, droughts, and wildfires that have dominated the past year, global warming will undoubtedly be a “hot” topic at this year’s conference. But, amazingly, many broadcast meteorologists remain lukewarm to the subject: The majority of weathercasters, including many with AMS certification, don’t believe that humans are causing climate change, let alone that it’s dramatically shifting our weather patterns. These meteorologists are missing the opportunity to be journalistic heroes who can inform the nation about our increasingly poisoned weather.

For those weathercasters who want education on the subject, the conference will have plenty to provide, with panels like “Applying Climate Change to Google Earth,” “Climate Change and Ocean Stories,” and “Hot Topics for the Station Scientist.” But the source of the climate communication deficit is mostly not educational, it’s about politics. The ideological bent of some forecasters, and the pressures to avoid “controversial” subjects that might affect ratings, are leading some meteorologists to ignore science when airtime arrives. That’s why the staff of Forecast the Facts will be attending the conference, carrying a message from thousands of our members: that reporting on global warming is a professional and moral responsibility. Below are just a few of their powerful comments:

Read more

One of the Government’s most senior scientific advisors [and former IPCC chair] has said that efforts to stop a sharp rise in global temperatures were now unrealistic. [BBC News]

Professor Sir Robert Watson said that the hope of restricting the average temperature rise to 2C was “out the window.”

He said that the rise could be as high as 5C — with dire consequences.

Professor Watson added the Chancellor, George Osborne, should back efforts to cut the UK’s CO2 emissions.

He said: “I have to look back (on the outcome of successive climate change summits) Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban and say that I can’t be overly optimistic.

“To be quite candid the idea of a 2C target is largely out of the window.”

A judge in Lamar County, Texas, ruled Wednesday night that TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline has the right of eminent domain, rejecting a plea by farm manager Julia Trigg Crawford and dealing a blow to landowners and environmentalists who have been trying to block construction of the pipeline. [Washington Post]

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will lay out policies on Thursday aimed at achieving North American energy independence by 2020 by pursuing a sharp increase in production of oil and natural gas on federal lands and off the U.S. coast. [Reuters]

A new report in Nature released Wednesday says that on the Antarctic Peninsula, at least, human-generated greenhouse gases have almost certainly been by far the most important driver of warming over the past half-century. [Climate Central]

Colorado’s senators on Wednesday blamed congressional inaction on a tax credit benefiting wind power producers for a recent round of layoffs in their state. [The Hill]

The nation is heading toward the worst outbreak of West Nile disease in the 13 years that the virus has been on this continent, federal health authorities said Wednesday. [New York Times]

Industrial companies in China are being warned they can expect tougher environmental penalties, part of the government’s plans to cut pollutant emissions. [China Daily]

The fate of billions of dollars of promised funding from rich countries to help the developing world adapt to climate change will be discussed on Thursday in Geneva, at the first meeting of the UN’s Green Climate Fund. [Guardian]