In the annals of idiotic remarks by Presidential candidates, Mitt Romney now has a strong claim for the top spot.

On Meet the Press, the GOP nominee actually told NBC’s David Gregory:

I’m not in this race to slow the rise of the oceans or to heal the planet.

You can watch it here.

This pledge to ignore the gravest preventable threat to the health and well-being of our children easily trumps other infamous remarks (or non-remarks, in the case of Gerald Ford). Indeed, if he wins, many conservatives will doubtless argue Romney has a mandate NOT to act.

At the Tampa convention, Romney had previously mocked Obama’s 2008 pledge to fight climate change, to much laughter by the GOP delegates. Hypocritically, Romney had said just minutes earlier in that speech, “when the world needs someone to do the really big stuff, you need an American.” Avoiding catastrophic global warming — and preserving a livable climate capable of feeding 9 billion people by mid century — apparently isn’t big enough stuff to Mitt.

No, for Romney, “I’m not in this race to slow the rise of the oceans or to heal the planet. I’m in this race to help the American people.” Romney has apparently missed the warming-driven rise of extreme weather that is harming the American people right now. A future in which humanity doesn’t mitigate greenhouse gases would be an unmitigated disaster for all of humanity, indeed for almost all living things (other than invasive species) — see “How We Know Inaction Is the Gravest Threat Humanity Faces.”

And for the record, what Obama actually said back in 2008 was:

If we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal….

Obama wasn’t making some narrow eco-pledge. He was saying he was in the race to help the American people in the short term and the long term. You can accuse Obama of  failing to fight hard enough for the climate goal — and I often do — but not for making the pledge in the first place. Romney’s remark should be enshrined in the anti-science hall of shame.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Charles Koch laments “crony capitalism,” complaining about “partisan rhetoric,” corporations’ eagerness “to lobby for maintaining and increasing subsidies,” and rewards for “politically connected friends.”

Hilariously, he is not writing about himself or his brother David.

Drawing on just a small portion of their net worth, the Koch brothers bankroll a network of Tea Party groups and Republican political war chests. In return, they receive continued subsidies, government contracts, and pro-polluter policies that benefit their interests.

So while David Koch hypocritically complains about “crony capitalism,” here are five ways his company, Koch Industries, is benefiting from policies it has specifically campaigned, donated, and lobbied for:

1. Billions of dollars in oil subsidies: In his op-ed, Koch acknowledges government support of renewable energy, but he doesn’t point out the billions of dollars in tax breaks the oil industry receives every year. Koch Industries reaps billions in these century-old tax breaks, and spends millions lobbying specifically to ensure they stay in place. Koch is guilty of what he writes in his op-ed: “Far too many businesses have been all too eager to lobby for maintaining and increasing subsidies and mandates paid by taxpayers and consumers.”

2. Koch Industries has had at least $85 million in federal government contracts: Lee Fang reported that the Bush administration awarded the corporation expensive contracts, after Koch Industry contributions to Bush’s campaign. Many come from the Department of Defense, but they also include an exclusive contract to supply the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve and prior access to Iraqi crude oil.

3. They’ve asked for bailouts: A Koch refinery located in Alaska, Flint Hills Refinery, repeatedly asked former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for a bailout. Sen. Lisa Murkowski also asked for reduced royalties on the company’s behalf, arguing it plays a “vital” part in the economy.

4. After launching a campaign on behalf of the Keystone XL pipeline, they stand to benefit from taxpayer subsidies: Price of Oil calculates that refineries for the Keystone XL pipeline would receive over $1 billion in tax breaks for tar sands equipment. The Kochs have avoided talking about on how this would benefit the company. But InsideClimate News recently reported that a Koch subsidiary told regulators it has “direct and substantial interest” in the pipeline. Through its political contributions to Canadian lawmakers, the corporation help itself maintain a stake Canada’s tar sands.

5. Koch Industries contributes millions of dollars to advance anti-environment legislation, and has been accused of outright bribery: Koch argues that the point of business is to “act lawfully and with integrity.” However, Grist points out a telling anecdote that undermines Koch’s point: Koch Industries was accused of bribing French government officials to win contracts. The Seattle Times reported that a Koch ethics manager highlighted bribes and activities that were “violations of criminal law” in France; however, the whistleblower was fired soon after she alerted executives to the issue.

Koch Industries has spent nearly $13.6 million on lobbying since 2011 — almost all of which has gone to Republicans. The Koch brothers have personally pledged $60 million to defeat President Obama, according to the Huffington Post. In the U.S., Koch Industries’ biggest political recipients in Congress advance anti-environment and anti-climate legislation, giving Koch Industries the freedom to emit 300 million tons of carbon annually.

Related Post:

• The most Orwellian op-ed of the year

by Bob Berwyn, via Summit County Citizens Voice

In yet another sign of how quickly global warming is eating away at glaciers in the European Alps, the Austrian Alpine Club is reporting that the summit cross high on the 3,660-meter Grossvenediger in Austria came close to toppling off its podium this summer.

The permanent snow and ice that helped hold the monument in place for decades melted away in the summer heat, with several feet of ice vanishing just in the past few months. A mountain guide arriving at the summit last week discovered that the cross was close to falling over, with potential risks to summit visitors.

A mountain rescue crew and other workers temporarily re-anchored the cross to the remaining ice with steel cables, but later decided to take it down once again. It will be remounted on solid rock.

Austrian media is reporting that, up until very recently, it would have been impossible to use the bare rocks at the summit as an anchor point. The permanent snow and ice that has covered the mountain’s peak for at least a century has just vanished within the past few weeks, according to Friedl Steiner, head of the local rescue group, who attributed the melting to climate change.

The U.S. Geological Survey has documented shrinking and vanishing ice fields in the Rocky Mountains with this extraordinary photo project.

Global warming deniers will try to tell you that glaciers have been melting since the end of the last ice age, but the rate of melting at most glaciers now far exceeds the background rate that could be expected as part of natural climate variations.

Glacier melting has accelerated in the European Alps since 1980, and 10 to 20 percent of glacier ice in the Alps has been lost in less than two decades. Half the volume of Europe’s Alpine glaciers has disappeared since 1850.

Thinning and melting rates in Alaskan glaciers have more than doubled just in the past 10 years.

African glaciers have declined by 60 to 70 percent since the 1900s, and most Pacific glaciers have also declined, with the exception of some of New Zealand’s ice fields, where increased precipitation has helped boost glacier growth.

Bob Berwyn is Editor of the Summit County Citizens Voice. This piece was originally published at the Citizens Voice and was reprinted with permission.

by Jessica Goad

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, told The Reno Gazette-Journal earlier this year that he doesn’t know “the purpose of ” public lands. Presidents since Theodore Roosevelt—who was an avid hunter and the father of American conservation—have realized the many purposes of public lands. They support our nation’s energy sector, provide clean air and clean water, and serve a critical role in preserving our heritage as a nation. Protecting parks, monuments, and other wilderness areas stimulates hundreds of thousands of jobs from recreation and tourism alone. Yet Gov. Romney apparently thinks our 700 million acres of federal public lands serve no obvious purpose.

So what are Gov. Romney’s and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI), policies on public lands? We examined the plans of the two candidates alongside their previous votes and policy positions, discovering that, for them, the purpose of public lands is:

• More access for oil and gas drilling and less investment in cleaner alternative energy sources
• The sale of public lands rather than further conservation for future enjoyment and job creation
• Less public access to public lands due to ill-considered budget cuts rather than investments in our parks and wilderness areas to boost local economies and jobs

In short, the public lands policies of Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan would be disastrous for the 700 million acres of federal public lands that belong to all of us.

Much of the evidence for this analysis of the Republican ticket’s public lands policy agenda is derived from Rep. Ryan’s past votes as a member of Congress. But Gov. Romney’s vagueness and lack of understanding about public lands issues in general also provides a sense of where the campaign’s priorities do or do not lie.

It is clear that instead of putting public lands to work in support of a balanced energy strategy and conservation goals compatible with economic opportunity and the pursuit of happiness, the Republican candidates for the presidency and vice presidency of our nation would drill, slash, and sell our public lands to benefit a few well-connected businesses and individuals. In this issue brief, we detail these plans, beginning with energy and then moving to access, funding, and the sale of public lands.

Energy

Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan want fossil fuels to be the winners and want sources of renewable energy to be the losers in our nation’s future energy development. They want to preserve tax breaks for oil companies, slash clean energy investments, and promote vast amounts of new oil drilling. These energy priorities also extend to public lands, as can be seen through the campaign’s energy plan and Rep. Ryan’s past votes in Congress.

The campaign’s focus on expanding domestic oil and gas production seems particularly strange when put in context—under the Obama administration, fossil fuel production has been steady and growing on both private and public lands. For example, oil production from publicly owned lands and waters is higher now than it was in the final three years of the George W. Bush administration. Additionally, the Bureau of Land Management held three of its five largest-ever oil and gas lease sales in calendar year 2011.

Turning energy decisions over to the states

The energy plan released by the Romney campaign in late August proposes transferring decisions regarding energy development on public lands from the federal government to the states. This could result in much more drilling and mining on public lands while bypassing federal environmental and health protections because, as The New York Times put it, “States, as a rule, tend to be interested mainly in resource development.”

Troublingly, this portion of Gov. Romney’s plan is very vague when it comes to the integrity of national parks. It claims that energy decisions about “lands specially designated off-limits” will not be turned over to the states, but it is unclear about what precisely that means. It could indicate that places protected from development by current law such as national parks would be off limits. But it also could be interpreted to mean that only places chosen by a Romney-Ryan administration would be off limits, leaving the management of energy resources in national parks up to different states.

Giving states the authority to permit drilling or mining in or near national parks would also sidestep public comment procedures as required by the federal review process. This means that rather than involving the public in decisions about their lands, individual states would be solely in charge of permitting controversial projects near national parks such as uranium mining around the Grand Canyon, oil and gas drilling near Arches National Park in Utah, and coal mining 10 miles from that state’s picturesque Bryce Canyon.

This proposal prompted many citizens who value public lands to be concerned, including sportsmen. A columnist for Field and Stream, a popular outdoor activities magazine, recently wrote that:

Read more

The decline in climate coverage in recent years has been well documented — both for print and the evening news.

ABC’s veteran journalist Bill Blakemore offers his explanation for this dismaying trend in an excellent Nature’s Edge Notebook column, “The Elephant We’re All Inside: Junk Journalism on Climate, or Too Big to Cover”:

A number of the world’s professional climate scientists are perplexed by — and in some cases furious with — American news directors.

“Malpractice!” is typical of the charges this reporter has heard highly respected climate experts level — privately, off the record — at my professional colleagues over the past few years.

Complaints include what seems to the scientists a willful omission of overwhelming evidence the new droughts and floods are worsened by man made global warming, and unquestioning repetition, gullible at best, of transparent anti-science propaganda credibly reported to be funded by fossil fuel interests and anti-regulation allies.

As scientific reports about the speedy advance and devastating impacts of man made global warming have grown steadily more alarming, surveys have shown most mainstream American news organizations covering it less and less over the past two years.

Even during this hot summer, when inescapable bad news about the warming climate from around the United States and the world has forced its way into main stream media coverage, it has usually been reported only in a reactive and literal event-coverage sort of way.

There’s been little of the persistent probing analysis and regular coverage scientists say is urgently needed for a grave planet-wide crisis — reporting of the kind surveys show there was much more of in mainstream coverage up until two years ago.

Why this decline in persistent coverage?

I have discussed why social scientists believe this is happening (here). I’ve posted an explanation from a top foreign journalist (see Former correspondent and editor explains the drop in quality of BBC’s climate coverage: For 2011, BBC has “explicitly parked climate change in the category ‘Done That Already, Nothing New to Say’ ”). And I’ve offered my own explanation (see “What if the MSM simply can’t cover humanity’s self-destruction?“).

Blakemore offers two basic explanations — “a cynical disinformation and intimidation campaign” and “unprecedented scale and complexity of the crisis of manmade global warming.” Let’s start with the first:

Read more

Katherine Bagley, via InsideClimate News

The harassment faced by U.S.-based climate scientists has been well documented in the media—but not the harassment of scientists in Europe, Canada or the rest of the world.

That’s because there hasn’t been much to report.

While outspoken scientists of human-caused climate change in the United States endure torrents of freedom of information requests, hate mail and even death threats from skeptics, their counterparts abroad have been free to do their work without fear.

Jochem Marotzke, managing director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, said there is “no systematic attempt by a political camp” to target climate scientists in Germany. “I get the odd critical email from a skeptic, but would not classify anything as personally aggressive,” said Marotzke. “Very different from the U.S. scene.”

“I feel for my American colleagues and what they’ve had to deal with,” said
Tim Lenton, an earth system scientist who specializes in climate tipping points at the University of Exeter in the UK. Lenton said he has never had to fend off skeptic attacks against his work or his integrity. “British scientists aren’t immune to attacks, but it is a very different level than compared to what is happening in the U.S.”

InsideClimate News contacted scientists working on climate change in Europe, Canada and Japan and learned that virtually everyone believes that the harassment is specific to the United States. They said that it could have long-term consequences for public understanding of global warming.

“The harassment has an intimidating effect—especially on young scientists,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, head of earth system analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Rahmstorf said that watching colleagues be harassed often deters them from speaking to media or the public about their research, which skews the debate.

Already, there is evidence of the U.S. public being swayed, said Tony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.

Read more

Congress is back in session after a long summer break. And the first order of business in the House of Representatives is to pass the “No More Solyndras” Act, a bill designed to squash the Department of Energy’s embattled loan guarantee program for innovative clean energy projects.

But here’s something you won’t likely hear from lawmakers: Experience on the ground shows that the loan guarantee program is working as designed.

Partly boosted by the construction of large-scale solar projects supported by loan guarantees, the U.S. solar photovoltaic market is on track for a third consecutive year of triple-digit growth.

U.S. solar developers installed 742 megawatts of solar PV in the second quarter of 2012. And if growth continues, the industry could install more than 3,000 megawatts of projects this year, according to a new market report from GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association.

While residential installations were flat and commercial installations dipped in Q2 of this year, utility-scale projects grew substantially. Two projects partly responsible for the boost — the 290-MW Agua Caliente project in Arizona and the 170-MW Mesquite project — received loan guarantees through the DOE. Neither project is fully complete yet, but both had phases come online this year. A third project, the 50-MW Silver State solar plant, was fast-tracked by the Interior Department and became the first large-scale solar facility to be developed on public lands.

If it were not for the growth in large-scale projects, the solar market would have declined by 18 percent rather than grow by 45 percent in the second quarter, according to the report.

Much of the political attention to loan guarantees has been focused on a few high-risk technology companies that went bankrupt (Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Solyndra); however, the majority of projects supported by the program were for large-scale power generation and fuel production. The loan guarantees were designed to help leverage private capital to finance these facilities during the economic downturn when private investors were wary of deploying capital. It worked. And today, dozens of “first-of-a-kind” projects are under construction or completed, helping boost America’s share of renewable energy.

In fact, because the loan guarantee program supported mostly generation projects with long-term contracts, analysis has found that it will cost taxpayers $2 billion less than initially expected.

Unfortunately, this story will likely be ignored by opponents still intent on politicizing Solyndra.

Related Posts:

• Five Things You Should Know About Solyndra During The 2012 Campaign
• Breaking News Stunner: DOE Loan Guarantee Program Will Cost $2 Billion Less Than Initially Expected
• Renewable Electricity Nearly Doubles Under Obama: ‘I Think They’re The Future. They’re Worth Fighting For’

GM's Bob Lutz

by KC Golden, via the GRIP blog

I own a 1976 Chevy pickup truck.

It’s okay; I don’t drive it.  I leave it parked on the street.  It stands there – its iconic logo all shiny and golden on the grill and hubcaps – as testimony to my faith in American democracy.

I bought my Chevy in the fall of 2009, after I heard NBC political analyst Chuck Todd say the future of American democracy depended on whether GM emerged from bankruptcy and stayed afloat after the bailout.   It was a Redd Foxx moment for me.

GM’s management had just driven the share price from over $100 to under a buck.  Now Todd says the only hope for restoring faith in democratic institutions is the success of this basket case, this staggering Hummosaurus? GM fought tooth and nail against vehicle emission standards.  Their lawyers ran amok while their engineers went AWOL, raising questions as to whether it was a case of commercial suicide.  GM Vice-President Bob Lutz called global warming “a crock of shit.”  And now we had to save them in order to save ourselves?

So I was desperate.  Only irony could save me.   Instead of having the heart attack, I bought the truck.

Well, we’ve come a long way since 2009.  Last week, the Obama Administration finalized new clean car standards that will double the fuel economy of the passenger vehicle fleet by 2025.  The Democrats held their convention and proved that Chuck Todd was very, very right:  The revival of the auto industry is the centerpiece of the President’s case for re-election – Exhibit 1 for the renewal of trust in American institutions.  (Ahem, it’s the fuel economy standards, more than the bailout, that are saving Detroit.)  And Bob Lutz – climate denier and father of the Chevy Volt! – came to Seattle for the Beyond Oil conference.

I spoke at Beyond Oil just before Lutz.  What an opportunity to bury the hatchet!  Having pioneered the Volt – such a promising and important climate solution – might he reconsider his views on the climate problem?

Cleverly, I offered him a deal:  I would go to the Chevy dealer, trade in my pickup, and buy a new Volt, if he would admit the truth about climate disruption. Having been mortal foes, we would move forward together to a better future.  I would meet him more than half way:  We would drive to this better future in a Volt!

No dice.  He got up there and said “I won’t respond to Mr. Golden,” and then spent about 10 minutes crooning denier standards, like “Some Scientists Say This, and Some Say That,” and “CO2 is A Plant’s Best Friend.”  He didn’t quite say “crock of shit,” but he came about as close as he safely could in front of a Seattle audience.

No Volt for me.

But I’m not giving up. At this same conference, Amory Lovins wisely said that while we may not share the same motives, we can all arrive together at a post-fossil fuel result (Reinventing Fire).   This is an efficient and gracious way to avoid getting wrapped around the axle of denial and drive the discussion back toward solutions.  We’ve all used this maneuver, and Amory’s the master.

Trouble is, it lets the denial stand.  I know, I know, any rational strategist would say:  “Don’t waste your time trying to move hard-core deniers.  Focus on the base and the middle.”  But I can’t take it any more.   I can’t just sit there while accomplished, well-respected, intelligent public figures repeat these insane lies, fertilizing the ecosystem of denial as the climate crisis unfolds before our very eyes.

And particularly when one of the pioneers of a key climate solution stands up on a public stage in Seattle Center – our house – in 2012 and says we don’t have a problem, I refuse to remain all cool and rational and Amory about it.

I’m not done with you Lutz….

KC Golden is the Policy Director of Climate Solutions, a Northwest-based nonprofit. This piece was originally published at the GRIP blog and was reprinted with permission.

With the ice-free drilling season nearing an end, Shell Oil started its first exploration well in the Chukchi Sea off the northwest coast of Alaska on Sunday. [Washington Post]

A new paper, released Sunday in Nature Climate Change, has attempted to lay out just how climate stress affects forests, and how serious the consequences of could be. [Climate Central]

New Zealand’s High Court has dismissed a challenge launched by climate-change sceptics against a government research agency’s finding that the temperature had risen in the past century. [The Australian]

European greenhouse gas emissions fell by 2.5 percent in 2011 over 2010, as a mild winter and increase in renewable energy use offset a rise in coal consumption and economic activity, estimates released on Friday said. [AFP]

Drought and rising temperatures are forcing water managers across the country to scramble for ways to produce the same amount of power from the hydroelectric grid with less water, including from behemoths such as the Hoover Dam. [Washington Post]

A massive Idaho wildfire forced hundreds of people from their homes on Sunday as high winds pushed the blaze to within miles of two communities. [Reuters]

Caribbean coral reefs – which make up one of the world’s most colourful, vivid and productive ecosystems – are on the verge of collapse, with less than 10% of the reef area showing live coral cover. [Guardian]

China will order its dominant electricity distributors to source up to 15 percent of their power from renewable energy including wind, but slow compliance means it may be years before the country’s struggling wind power developers benefit, industry executives say. [Reuters]

An over-reliance on gas-fired power stations risks making it impossible for Britain to meet targets on cutting carbon emissions, the new head of the independent climate change watchdog has warned. [The Independent]