by Paul Douglas via Neorenaissance

During the Republican National Convention in Tampa, climate change became a punch line. “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet” Mitt Romney said.

(Pause for polite laughter)

“My promise is to help you and your family.”

All well and good. But denying climate change won’t help any American family or our fledgling economy. And looking at the world with carbon-colored glasses, or using Solyndra as an excuse to snub renewables and clean-tech, is not only short-sighted, but makes America less competitive on the world stage. According to the World Economic Forum, America’s global competitiveness fell from 1^st to 7^th place since 2007. Should we just accept that most breakthrough energy technologies are originating in China and Europe, where there is no more “debate” about climate trends? Why is America still questioning the science? For political entertainment? Something tells me Mother Nature may get the last laugh.

To be fair, Romney later adjusted his position on climate change. “My best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming,” he said last week in an online debate with president Obama at ScienceDebate.org, “and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences.” Bravo! That’s leadership. But then sadly, in the very next sentence he veered into denial when he said “there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue.” This is simply not true, and a candidate for president needs to be dealing in reality on an issue like this. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree. That’s a consensus.

If it’s not raining, why are we getting wet?

As a Republican business owner, entrepreneur, meteorologist and father of two upbeat, optimistic boys, I may not fit the stereotype of a “global warming alarmist.” I’m an Evangelical Christian. I’m enthusiastic about streamlining government and letting the markets work. But unlike some, I see no inherent struggle between my faith and the ability of science to improve our understanding of the world. The Creator gave me a brain, to think and reason, and react to facts on the ground. And I’m disillusioned, because some in my party are pro-science-denial, and on the wrong side of history.

The word “conservative” no longer applies to the environment. The GOP’s new energy platform shows this, in a stunning departure from 2008. Don’t get me wrong. My party’s focus on the economy and putting Americans back to work is dead on. And America has been blessed with a rich supply of natural resources and innovative technologies to wean ourselves off foreign crude. But our fossil fuel frenzy is impacting the weather floating above our heads. Denying that it’s raining doesn’t keep you from getting wet, and climate change has gone from theory to reality — while our side fiddles away like Nero.

What the data tells me

Read more

On Thursday, oil baron Harold Hamm will testify to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on the unrealistic promise that the U.S. can drill its way to energy independence. As chief architect of Romney’s energy plan, Hamm will echo its pro-oil tenets.

Hamm is CEO of Continental Resources, the company with the largest holdings in the Bakken oil and gas boom and his policy positions are, of course, firmly for maximizing drilling.

As lawmakers discuss the prudence of the GOP’s “Drill Baby Drill” energy plan, here are three essential questions that Hamm should answer at Thursday’s hearing:

How does the Romney/Ryan energy plan apply to national parks, and do you support the idea of throwing out federal safeguards for drilling in national parks that belong to all Americans?

The Romney energy plan proposes turning energy development on public lands over to the states, but it includes no details about which public lands would be included and how such a policy would work. In fact a recent trade organization, the International Association of Drilling Contractors, said that working under various state regulations could cause operators to “tear their hair out” and that it was “a little bit of populist raw meat.” The Center for American Progress just released a map of 30 national park units with non-federal mineral rights that could face future drilling, including the Flight 93 National Memorial, Everglades National Park, and Grand Teton National Park.

In his hearing testimony, Hamm supports opening federal lands and offshore areas for drilling, but claims it “would impact my company very little” because “we mainly work on private lands.” But Hamm holds a number of permits to drill on public lands, including recent permits for Montana and North Dakota. Romney’s plan would likely boost Hamm’s profits, but potentially at the risk of Americans’ national parks.

How does clean energy and fuel efficiency fit into a plan for energy independence, since a realistic plan must include lower oil consumption?

There are two parts of the equation to energy independence — energy production and consumption. But oil executives and some Republicans ignore initiatives that lower foreign oil consumption, like leaps in the production of clean energy and the Obama administration’s fuel efficiency standards.

Interestingly, Brad Plumer of the Wonk Blog points out that Romney’s plan relies on a CitiGroup report that cites fuel economy standards “as a major reason why America is now lurching toward energy independence.” However, Romney wants to roll back these initiatives, even though they are the only true solution for protecting consumers from oil price shocks, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Why do you call oil safety regulations unnecessary and burdensome when your company is guilty of drilling violations?

Hamm’s company Continental Resources has been fined for a number of violations in 2011: In several incidents, it’s been fined for improperly dumping oil and toxics into the air, soil and water. And even worse, neither Romney or Hamm show an interest in accounting for the risks to our climate posed by unchecked fossil fuel production.

Hamm is a critic of the Obama administration’s energy policy, calling it “one of scarcity” — even though the oil industry has reached the highest level of production in eight years.

Hamm is not only Romney’s policy adviser, but also a $1.2 million donor to Republicans and Romney’s super PAC. He has also been vocal about tax credits for oil, which Romney would protect by offering billions more in tax breaks for the top five oil corporations.

by Jessica Goad

America’s national parks are undoubtedly some of our “best ideas.” They are unique places across our country where public lands are preserved for their natural, cultural, or historic value, as well as for the unique contributions they provide to local and regional economies and our national economic strength. This is why we have set aside national parks, national seashores, national memorials, and other places managed by the National Park Service for future generations.

Even though we have protected these national park units to allow them to achieve their full environmental, cultural, historical, and economic potential, threats to their preservation do arise. One of those threats today is the potential for future oil and gas development within national parks. We requested data from the National Park Service, which identified 42 park units where non-federal oil and gas drilling is or could be occurring in the future. Of these, 12 units currently have oil and gas operations within them, while 30 units may be threatened in the future with drilling. (see map above).

This data was compiled by the National Park Service by assessing three factors:

• The parks’ proximity to oil and gas resources
• Drilling activity already occurring near the parks’ boundaries
• The existence of non-federal mineral rights within the parks

These existing mineral rights are either inholdings—where an individual owns a piece of property completely surrounded by a park unit—or are non-federal subsurface mineral rights, which are frequently referred to as “split estate” where the federal government owns the surface of the land and a private entity owns the right to access the minerals below the ground. Private individuals or companies owned these mineral rights before the parks were created and have the legal right to access them.

Currently, any development activity on public lands, including national parks, must take place in accordance with various federal environmental laws to protect air, water, wildlife, and public health. Additionally, operators must comply with National Park Service oil and gas regulations within park units.

But this time-tested process is now threatened by some politicians in Washington—influenced by the oil and gas industry—who propose to roll back or even completely eliminate federal oversight of energy on public lands in favor of more relaxed state regulations. This shift in management oversight of drilling in national parks would be more dangerous to maintaining the balance needed to develop our national parks to their full and varied potential, thereby placing the 42 areas highlighted above at an even greater risk.

Oil and gas drilling is a dirty business that, if done improperly, has the potential to do substantial harm to national parks and other public lands. Drilling involves not just the construction of rigs but also roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure. Toxic chemicals such as naphthalene and benzene are sometimes used in oil and gas drilling and production activities. There is also the equally real threat of spills, which are frequent both onshore and offshore. One estimate found that in North Dakota in 2011 alone there were more than a thousand spills of oil, wastewater, or other drilling fluids.

The potential for future drilling within national parks is a real threat when seen through the lens of today’s political context. The American people deserve the right to have their say in the development of our national parks and public lands through their elected representatives in Washington. Rolling back federal regulations and having the states make these decisions would be exceedingly dangerous.

Jessica Goad is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center for American Progress’s Public Lands Project.

The number of large corporations reporting current risks from climate change has grown substantially over the last two years.

According to a survey of 405 of the biggest global companies conducted by the Carbon Disclosure Project, 37 percent say they are already seeing the impact of climate change on their business — up from 10 percent in 2010.

The Carbon Disclosure Project attributes the increase in companies worried about current climate risks to the rise in extreme weather globally:

Recent extreme weather and natural events have tested companies’ business resilience and increased their level of understanding of the timeframes of the physical risks they associate with climate change. Physical risks are viewed as tangible and present, impacting companies’ operations, supply chains and business planning. The majority of companies (81%) report physical risks and the percentage of companies that view these risks as current has nearly quadrupled from 10% in 2010 to 37% in 2012. Insurance company Allianz reports that in 2011 it processed $2.2 billion in natural catastrophe (including non-weather related) claims, the largest sum for natural catastrophes in its history.

So far this year, America has seen the most extreme period for weather ever recorded. The country is on track to surpass last year, when there were 14 extreme weather events that each caused more than a billion dollars in damage — the most in U.S. history.

In response to these tangible impacts, more large companies are crafting strategies for addressing climate change. According to the survey, 78 percent of responding companies are factoring climate into their business plans, up from 68 percent in 2011.

The reaction from corporations is similar to those seen among individuals: Polls show that as people see the impact of extreme weather first hand, they’re far more likely to say they understand the climate is changing due to human activity.

“Business and economies globally have already been impacted by the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events, which scientists are increasingly linking to climate change,” wrote Paul Simpson, CEO of the Carbon Disclosure Project. “It is vital that we internalize the costs of future environmental damage into today’s decisions by putting an effective price on carbon.”

The Carbon Disclosure Project is a group of hundreds of financial institutions and corporations worth $78 trillion that have pledged to release data on their greenhouse gas emissions and implement reduction strategies.

This latest survey shows yet again how private companies are taking action to address the problem, while politicians in Washington debate whether the problem even exists. Last year, a group of investors worth $20 trillion in assets called climate action the foundation of “long-term economic growth” that will “present significant opportunities for investors in areas such as cleaner and renewable energy, energy efficiency and decarbonisation.”

Investor support for addressing climate change has doubled in the last three years — growing from 150 investors managing $9 trillion in assets to today’s 285 investors with $20 trillion.

This week, the House will likely pass the “No More Solyndras” Act, a bill designed dismantle the loan guarantee program. While the bill won’t pass the Senate, it’s an opportunity for House Republicans to continue messaging on Solyndra in the lead-up to the November elections. Below, we feature a re-print of an earlier Climate Progress article outlining why the “No More Solyndras” Act is such a bad idea.

by Richard W. Caperton

Imagine a government program that had produced dozens of success stories, cost less than expected, and helped build an industry of the future. Wouldn’t you want to expand that program?  Yes, you probably would.  Unless, of course, you were Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL).

If you were Rep. Cliff Stearns, you would introduce legislation to end the program.  And, if the program somehow did survive, your legislation would make sure that it operated with more bureaucratic red tape and weaker financial standing.

Welcome to the bizarre politics around the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program. Tomorrow, two subcommittees of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will consider a piece of legislation written by Stearns called the “No More Solyndras Act.”  Every aspect of this bill is bad. If Congress really wants to improve the loan guarantee program, they should do so by allowing it to fund many more projects with a full portfolio of financial tools. Let’s look at why.

The Loan Guarantee Program has been a success

First, some background. DOE’s loan guarantee program was created in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and was strengthened in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill). The program is built to provide financing to new clean energy technologies that the private sector is unable to finance.  These companies are trying to cross the “Valley of Death,” where they need many millions — even billions — of dollars to build new projects.  Traditional lenders won’t finance these projects because they’re generally the first-of-a-kind, and venture capitalists who would finance innovative projects simply don’t have enough money to meet these companies’ needs.  So, the government stepped in and guaranteed that they’ll pay back a loan if the company is unable to.  This guarantee unlocks capital.

The program has been an overwhelming success.  The loan guarantee program alone financed 32 projects in more than 20 states, ultimately creating 22,000 jobs directly. Best of all, the government only spent $2.5 billion to mobilize more than $20 billion in private capital.

Even projects without guarantees have benefited from the process. For example, the due diligence process helped bring in a $1 billion investment from Bank of America for the largest residential solar project in U.S. history. The chief executive officer of the solar company deploying the project said that without the due diligence process to attract private lenders, “We would not have been able to make the economics of this project work.”

Enter the “No More Solyndras Act”: A potential disaster

Read more

“In a sense, it’s a vicious circle. Warmer temperatures during droughts lead to even drier and hotter conditions.”

by Bob Berwyn, via Summit County Citizens Voice

Even just the small amount of global warming measured to-date has pushed climatic growing conditions to extremes, according to a new report from University of Arizona researchers.

“Our concern is that vegetation will experience even more extreme growing conditions as anticipated further warming exacerbates the impacts of future droughts,” said Jeremy Weiss, a senior research with UA’s department of geosciences. “We know the climate in the Southwest is getting warmer, but we wanted to investigate how the higher temperatures might interact with the highly variable precipitation typical of the region.”

The study found that warmer temperatures magnify drought conditions by turning the atmosphere into a giant moisture-sucking sponge that make trees more susceptible to insects and other pathogens. The biggest impacts are in low to middle elevations, according to the study, scheduled for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences.

“Our study suggests that, as regional warming continues, drought-related plant stress associated with higher vapor pressure deficits will intensify and spread from late spring through summer to earlier and later parts of the growing season, as well to higher elevations,” the authors wrote.

Read more

by Peter Lehner, via NRDC’s Switchboard

Wind energy provides clean, renewable power that doesn’t pollute our air, harm our health or keep us tied to the fuels of last century.

But as two new NRDC studies (here and here) show that’s just the beginning of the benefits of wind energy.

The wind energy industry is creating jobs for American workers and breathing fresh air into economically struggling communities by providing new sources of revenue for landowners, cities, and towns, the two reports show. Wind energy is also giving American companies the opportunity to participate in a booming global industry.

Now is a good time to take stock of the benefits – direct and indirect – of wind energy.

Congress must decide the future of the Production Tax Credit that has been critical to the growth of the wind industry in America and the 75,000 jobs that have come with it.

The PTC – which is designed to help level the playing field between the renewable industry and the heavily subsidized fossil fuel industry – is set to expire at the end of the year. If it does, the American Wind Energy Association predicts at least 37,000 Americans will lose their jobs.

Unfortunately, misinformed criticisms of wind energy seek to downplay the strong economic and employment benefits of wind power, and ignore the continued innovation in this sector. This report addresses these arguments and demonstrates why so many voters are excited about wind energy.

Read more

It’s possible that climate change could in the years to come make our hot, violent summers even worse on both fronts. A fascinating new academic paper statistically spells out just what this might look like. [Atlantic]

The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from energy production declined in the U.S. in 2011 — the third time in four years and the fourth time in the last six years that has happened, the Energy Department said Tuesday. [Los Angeles Times]

As global warming nudges average temperatures upward across the planet and causes tumultuous, grape-damaging weather changes, winemakers in Oregon are wondering just how their superstar grape will fare — if at all. [NPR]

The lack of natural nectar — and the resulting decrease in honey production — has put many beekeepers in a sticky spot going into the winter. [Deseret News]

Strong winds and dry fuels caused the Pole Creek Fire in the Three Sisters Wilderness to almost triple in size Monday, with approximately 300 firefighters now battling the 4,300-acre blaze. [Register Guard]

The biggest estimated money losses due to the drought are in sugarcane, one of Louisiana’s biggest crops. About 380,000 acres — 90 percent of the total planted — were damaged. Although the estimated percentage loss from pre-storm value was 7 percent, that works out to nearly $60 million. [Associated Press]

Large chain stores, more than any other type of business, rely on rooftop solar power to help meet their energy needs, according to a report to be released Wednesday by the Solar Energy Industries Association and the Vote Solar Initiative, an advocacy group. [New York Times]

Climate activists protesting at Shell’s drilling in the Arctic blockaded an entrance to the company’s London headquarters on Tuesday morning by building a pyramid of ice blocks. [Guardian]

Japan’s subsidies for renewable power suppliers have sparked more than $2 billion of investment since they were launched two months ago, as companies and homeowners try to profit from an anti-nuclear energy policy after last year’s Fukushima crisis. [Reuters]