Figure 1. Arctic sea ice reached its minimum on September 16, 2012, and was at its lowest extent since satellite records began in 1979. Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

by Jeff Masters, via the Wunderblog

The extraordinary decline in Arctic sea ice during 2012 is finally over. Sea ice extent bottomed out on September 16, announced scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) on Wednesday.

The sea ice extent fell to 3.41 million square kilometers, breaking the previous all-time low set in 2007 by 18%–despite the fact that this year’s weather was cloudier and cooler than in 2007. Nearly half (49%) of the icecap was gone during this year’s minimum, compared to the average minimum for the years 1979 – 2000.

This is an area approximately 43% of the size of the Contiguous United States. And, for the fifth consecutive year–and fifth time in recorded history — ice-free navigation was possible in the Arctic along the coast of Canada (the Northwest Passage), and along the coast of Russia (the Northeast Passage or Northern Sea Route.)

“We are now in uncharted territory,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. “While we’ve long known that as the planet warms up, changes would be seen first and be most pronounced in the Arctic, few of us were prepared for how rapidly the changes would actually occur. While lots of people talk about opening of the Northwest Passage through the Canadian Arctic islands and the Northern Sea Route along the Russian coast, twenty years from now from now in August you might be able to take a ship right across the Arctic Ocean.”

When was the last time the Arctic was this ice-free?

We can be confident that the Arctic did not see the kind of melting observed in 2012 going back over a century, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh and Chapman, 2001). It is very unlikely the Northwest Passage was open between 1497 and 1900, since this spanned a cold period in the northern latitudes known as “The Little Ice Age”. Ships periodically attempted the Passage and were foiled during this period. Research by Kinnard et al. (2011) shows that the Arctic ice melt in the past few decades is unprecedented for at least the past 1,450 years.

We may have to go back to at least 4,000 B.C. to find the last time so little summer ice was present in the Arctic. Funder and Kjaer (2007) found extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coast, which suggested the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in the summer for over 1,000 years between 6,000 – 8,500 years ago, when Earth’s orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Prior to that, the next likely time was during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Arctic temperatures then were 2 – 3°C higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4 – 6 meters higher.

Read more

Before the House of Representatives takes a two-month recess, its final votes focuses on a Republican package of pro-coal bills, which dismantle essential water, air, and climate protections.

The White House has threatened to veto the package for its “harmful measures that would undermine landmark environmental laws and adversely affect public health, the economy, and the environment.”

Coal has backed the GOP’s political campaign with heavy spending on TV ads, lobbying and political contributions. Coal and dirty utilities have spent a total $66 million on lobbying since 2011. House Republicans have received $4.4 million in career contributions from the coal industry — nearly 5 times the amount Democratic members received, according to a ThinkProgress analysis of Center for Responsive Politics data.

In 2012 alone, Republicans received 89 percent of the coal industry’s campaign contributions. Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), chair of the Energy and Commerce committee, has received $60,000 from both major utilities and the coal industry. Another sponsor, Rep. David McKinley (R-WV), is the top recipient of coal cash for 2012, receiving over $200,000.

The coal industry has also waged a separate “public awareness” campaign on pro-coal TV ads. The American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity has so far spent $12 million of its promised $40 million election-year budget on ads this cycle. So far, total fossil fuel spending has exceeded $153 million.

Backed by a pile of corporate polluter cash, House Republicans and the Romney campaign have rallied around the myth that the administration is waging a “war on coal.” Instead of focusing on the slew of bills needing action, the GOP has waged a messaging campaign to oppose safeguards for public health against air pollution.

The GOP’s campaign is a giveaway to big polluters. It’s a plan that does nothing to moving energy policy forward — only threatening public health:

– It undermines clean air, clean water protections The package blocks EPA greenhouse gas regulation, prevents the EPA from regulating mercury, arsenic, smog, and coal ash from power plants. One bill repeals mercury standards that prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, 5,000 heart attacks, 130,000 asthma attacks, and 5,700 hospital visits annually. The legislation also threatens water quality by stripping the Department of Interior’s and EPA’s strip mining regulation and protections in the Clean Water Act.

– Selectively edits out health concerns, science: Ignoring overwhelming scientific consensus, H.R. 910 declares that carbon pollution is not a danger to health and the climate. In the latest version of legislation blocking EPA carbon pollution standards, the House Energy and Power Subcommittee deleted a mild climate change mention, which said the U.S. plays a role “in resolving global climate change matters on an international basis.” On Thursday, the Energy and Commerce Committee heard from a hearing witness that carbon pollution is good for the environment, because it is “plant food.”

–Public health standards will create jobs: A spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R) calls the package “jobs legislation.” But the same health standards Republicans oppose create tens of thousands more jobs in the manufacturing, installation, and maintenance of modern pollution reduction equipment. EPA protections against mercury would create a net 84,500 jobs by 2015, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Meanwhile, coal mining jobs in West Virginia reached a two-decade record in 2011. In Pennsylvania and Virginia, data shows a 2.3 percent increase and 6.7 percent increase in coal mining employment from 2009 to 2010.

The GOP’s effort could end up hurting the coal industry more by opposing technology that reduce the industry’s carbon pollution so it complies with the Clean Air Act. For instance, McKinley’s bill would prevent the EPA from reducing carbon pollution from power plants — the largest uncontrolled source — until the pollution control technology is economical. But that will never happen without a market for it, which requires some sort of pollution reduction regime.

– Makes U.S. more dependent on foreign oil: H.R. 3409 blocks new fuel economy standards that will save the U.S. 3 million barrels of oil daily and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. These standards will reduce U.S. oil use, so blocking them will maintain our demand for foreign oil. The standards would also save the average driver a net of $4,400 on lower gasoline purchases over the life of a 2025 car.

With this package, House Republicans will add to their 302 votes against the environment, including 87 efforts to dismantle the Clean Air Act, 34 against the Clean Water Act, and 128 against pollution measures.

by Kiley Kroh

Joining the chorus of influential voices in opposition to offshore drilling in the Arctic, British lawmakers today called for a halt to drilling in the Arctic Ocean until necessary steps are taken to protect the region from the potentially catastrophic consequences of an oil spill.

In a report citing the myriad risks and challenges of operating in the untested region, the Environmental Audit Committee of Britain’s House of Commons urged action to halt oil and gas drilling in the Arctic until new safeguards are put in place.

Lawmaker Caroline Lewis, member of the committee, explained their concern that “the race to carve up the Arctic is accelerating faster than our regulatory or technical capacity to manage it.”

An oil spill anywhere in the region could impact all of the surrounding Arctic nations, prompting the committee to call for the Arctic Council to draft a universal standard on disaster response.  In addition, the report recommends a “much higher, preferably unlimited, financial liability regime for oil and gas operations.”  Until there is greater certainty that individual companies and the Arctic nations are prepared to respond to a spill in the remote and unpredictable region, the committee maintains the Arctic Ocean should be off-limits to drilling.

The British parliament is yet another authoritative body expressing serious concern about the risks presented by offshore drilling in the planet’s last great frontier.

Earlier this year, insurance giant Lloyd’s of London issued a report warning that responding to an oil spill in a region that is “highly sensitive to damage” would present “multiple obstacles, which together constitute a unique and hard-to-manage risk.”

Soon after, German bank WestLB announced it would not provide financing to any offshore oil or gas drilling in the region, saying the “risks and costs are simply too high.”

Hamstrung by ice clinging to Alaska’s northern shore much longer than usual (ironically during a year with record-low ice) and a series of mishaps with its equipment, Shell Oil announced earlier this week that it would only pursue preparatory drilling in the Arctic Ocean this summer.  But as the company lays the foundation for a “multi-year exploration program” in the region, it is critical to note that the glaring deficiencies in science, infrastructure, and technology must be addressed.

Seen as the bellwether for climate change, the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet – leaving industries such as shipping, tourism, fisheries, and oil and gas chomping at the bit to stake their claim on the Arctic’s previously inaccessible riches.  The rapid industrialization of an already fragile ecosystem could be completely devastating.  With Arctic sea ice shrinking to the smallest extent ever recorded this summer, the committee’s report warns that “such development could result in significant environmental damage in a region already feeling the effects of climate change more than the rest of the planet.”

Michael Conathan, the Center for American Progress’ oceans policy director, explained the insanity of pursuing oil drilling in a part of the world under serious threat from climate change in an interview with E&E TV this week:

“I hope the irony isn’t lost on people: it is the fact that we have burned so many fossil fuels that have led to climate change that has allowed the ice to recede and that has subsequently now opened up these areas to drilling, and our response is to go in and extract more fossil fuels that we can burn and perpetuate the cycle.”

Not only is Shell ignoring the advice of some of the largest financial institutions and risk assessors, it’s also ignoring the world’s climate scientists.

Kiley Kroh is Associate Director of Oceans Communications at the Center for American Progress.

by Keith Miller, Kristina Costa, and Donna Cooper

Seven years ago, Hurricane Katrina pushed ashore in Louisiana, devastating the city of New Orleans and crippling an entire region. Massive storm surges overtook the city’s levees and washed away entire neighborhoods, leaving more than 1,800 dead and displacing more than 1 million more. The sum of property damages alone was more than $200 billion, with the overall damage to the regional economy totaling billions more. Making Katrina all the more tragic was the disaster’s preventability—if only those responsible for the region’s storm defenses and levees had taken action in the decades leading up to August 29, 2005.

The costs of this failure to act continue to mount. Since Katrina, repairing and upgrading the levee and flood-protection systems around New Orleans has cost the federal government $14 billion, and expenditures by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for displaced residents have run upwards of $30 billion.

But for those familiar with the condition of America’s water infrastructure, Hurricane Katrina was just the most devastating example of the kinds of failures that are now neither rare nor unexpected. Every year flooding alone kills an average of 94 people and causes roughly $7.2 billion in damages nationwide, and these figures exclude the devastation inflicted by storm surges similar to those that overtook New Orleans in 2005. Over the past century we have increasingly relied on manmade structures such as dams and levees to protect us from natural disasters, and since the early 1900s we have built these structures by the thousands in almost every state.

There are currently more than 84,000 dams and approximately 100,000 total miles of levees in the United States. In addition to helping prevent floods and enabling the movement of freight up and down inland waterways, these structures are also relied upon to provide water for drinking and irrigation, to generate electricity, to help combat forest fires, and to provide recreational opportunities. They are critical components of our national economy and improve our quality of life in underappreciated ways every day.

But despite their tremendous importance to thousands of communities across our country, a frightening number of dams and levees have been allowed to fall into disrepair. A combination of aging and government neglect means many of these structures struggle to remain operational or even structurally sound. More alarming still is that changing settlement patterns have resulted in hundreds of dams and levees never designed to protect human life now being expected to safeguard the thousands who have moved into nearby flood zones.

Meanwhile, federal, state, and local efforts to monitor and repair levees and dams are piecemeal and drastically underfunded, characterized by a lack of clear leadership and a dearth of critical information. Hundreds of dams across the country whose failure would put lives in danger are years overdue for inspection, while we have almost no information at all on the condition of the vast majority of American levees.

Additionally, advances in scientific research and in our understanding of aquatic habitats and hydrological processes shed light on the negative environmental consequences of building and maintaining some kinds of dams. On hundreds of rivers throughout the United States, thousands of aging dams—many of which are no longer serving the purpose for which they were built—contribute to water quality degradation, biodiversity damage, and fisheries harm. While some efforts are being made to assess these damages and remove dams when environmentally and economically appropriate, the pace of dam removal in these instances remains slow.

Despite these risks, funding authorization for the National Dam Safety Program, which helps states formulate plans for inspecting and repairing dams under their jurisdiction, expired a year ago, and Congress has been slow and miserly in its efforts to reauthorize the program. The Senate proposes to maintain the current inadequate level of funding for the program—in fiscal year 2011, the National Dam Safety Program received just $11 million—while the House has proposed a funding cut. Neither proposal has moved forward since being introduced earlier this year.

If we do not make changes soon to the way we monitor and maintain our nation’s dams and levees, catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina striking an ill-prepared New Orleans or the failure of the Kaloko Reservoir Dam in Hawaii that killed seven people in 2006, will continue to occur—likely with greater frequency. The combination of extreme weather and flooding resulting from global warming and our aging dam and levee infrastructure means that without action, thousands of lives and communities are at risk and avoidable public costs will rise. It is time that policymakers stop simply hoping that the worst will not occur and finally devote the resources and political will required to ensure the safety and prosperity of the American public.

You can download the full report here.

Donna Cooper is a Senior Fellow with the Economic Policy team, Kristina Costa is a Research Assistant in Economic Policy, and Keith Miller is an intern with the Economic Policy team at the Center for American Progress.

By Jessica Goad

Tomorrow President Barack Obama will designate the Chimney Rock Archeological Area in southwestern Colorado as a new national monument.  It will be the nation’s 103^rd national monument, and the third that Obama has designated (the others are Fort Ord in California and Fort Monroe in Virginia).

The monument, which encompasses about 4,700 acres, is part of the San Juan National Forest. It is of particular importance to local tribes, as the site was home to the ancestors of the modern Pueblo Indians. It was a destination because every 18.6 years, the moon rises exactly between two rock towers — a phenomenon known as a “lunar standstill.”

According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, “the area is the most culturally significant land managed by the U.S. Forest Service.”

The president has the authority to establish national monuments under the 1906 Antiquities Act to protect places of “historic or scientific interest.”  In total, 16 out of 19 presidents have used the act to establish national monuments, including places like the Grand Canyon and the Statue of Liberty.

Protecting places like Chimney Rock isn’t just about history — it’s also about the economy by supporting jobs through the varied economic impacts of tourism. A study commissioned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation found that making Chimney Rock a national monument will double the amount of visitors to the site from 12,000 to 24,000 people over 5 years, stimulating spending and job growth. It will also double the site’s current economic impacts from $1.2 million to $2.4 million.

A number of recent studies have provided evidence that protecting lands creates both jobs and economic opportunities. For example, a report from Headwaters Economics found that non-metro counties with at least one-third protected public lands saw employment increase by 300 percent. Another found that homes near national wildlife refuges have higher values. And recreation on lands managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior stimulated 403,000 jobs in 2011.

However, Western Republicans have consistently claimed that protecting places for future generations “locks them up” by preventing their development for fossil fuels and mining. And there have been a number of efforts this Congress to limit or even eliminate the president’s authority to designate new national monuments under the Antiquities Act (even Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan voted for such a provision last year).

Members of the Republican-only Congressional Western Caucus have also said that the establishment of new monuments and wilderness areas is “job-killing.”  Utah Rep. Rob Bishop (R), who is chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands, even has gone so far as to state claim that “national monuments and wilderness are not a boon to local economies, but rather a detriment in most scenarios.”

The evidence does not support this assertion. Protected places create enormous economic gains — and we don’t have to drill, mine, and dig up our public lands to realize that value.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

With the Arctic experiencing “astonishing” record melting of sea ice and scientists warning that “we have a planetary emergency” due to heat trapping gasses from burning fossil fuels, what is our response? Drill for more oil in the Arctic.

And with 90 percent of the world’s coral reefs under threat due to a steep rise in carbon dioxide emissions, what is our response? Build more coal mines, export terminals and coal-fired power plants to emit more carbon.

Heck, Australia is so bold, it’s looking to build export terminals that would go straight over the Great Barrier Reef — a natural gem already under threat from climate change and increasing industrial activity.

Welcome to the bizarro world of energy policy. Step right up and take a ride:

by Anthony Swift, via NRDC’s Switchboard

An investigation of pipeline accident reports from the last ten years has revealed that the much touted leak detection systems employed by pipeline companies only catch one out of twenty spills.

The article, by Lisa Song of InsideClimate News, illustrates an alarming disconnect between industry rhetoric and reality when it comes to detecting leaks on pipelines. Not only do pipeline leak detection systems miss nineteen out of twenty spills, they miss four out of five spills larger than 42,000 gallons. Understanding the limits of current leak detection technology has never been more important. As companies like Enbridge and TransCanada propose pipelines moving large volumes of tar sands across sparely populated areas, through rivers and aquifers, it’s critical that the public consider what’s at stake with open eyes. Particularly after learning from Enbridge’s Kalamazoo tar sands pipeline spill how much more damaging tar sands can be.

What does that mean for tar sands pipelines like Keystone XL and Northern Gateway?

TransCanada has told regulators that its leak detection system has a threshold of between 1.5% and 2%. Given that Keystone XL has a maximum capacity of 830,000 barrels of tar sands per day, TransCanada is saying that Keystone XL’s leak detection system can only reliably identify leaks if they’re spilling more than 500,000 to 700,000 gallons of tar sands a day. When put in that context, the reason folks don’t want Keystone XL built through their rivers and groundwater become clear.

Of course, TransCanada has told federal regulators that “computer based, non real-time, accumulated gain/loss volume trending would assist in identifying seepage releases below the 1.5 to 2 percent” threshold. In plain English, that means that given enough time, if TransCanada put a certain amount of tar sands in one end of Keystone XL, and gets less oil out of another, eventually they’ll determine they have a leak. But when?

Few would take heart upon learning the answer to that question. One of the “57 special conditions” that Keystone XL proponents claim will make the pipeline safer lays out the requirements its “non real time” leak detection system. Condition 31 says that Keystone XL’s leak detection system must be prepared using guidance provided in the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). And what does the CSA say?

To comply with this “special condition,” TransCanada’s non-real time leak detection system must be able to detect spills of 4.9 million gallons within a week (or 2% of its capacity). Leaks larger than 350,000 gallons a day, or 1% of its capacity, must be identified within a month – allowing a leak to generate a spill of over 10 million gallons over the course of a month before discovery. And there is no guidance for leaks less than one percent – on Keystone XL, a leak less than 350,000 gallons a day. When looking into it at way, the condition doesn’t seem that special.

Read more

by Donald Carr

The Food and Environmental Reporting Network released a striking report this week (Sept. 18) describing how industrial agriculture and climate change are fueling massive blooms of toxic algae:

Blooms have closed lake beaches or led to swimming advisories from Vermont’s Lake Champlain to Dorena Reservoir in Oregon and from Florida’s Caloosahatchee River to Wisconsin’s Lake Menomin. In addition to the health risks, the blooms take an economic toll. An estimate by Walter Dodds of Kansas State University conservatively puts the annual cost of freshwater algal blooms at more than $1 billion from lost recreation and depressed property values.

A slideshow of horrific images of water tainted by agriculture pollution accompanied the report.

The report noted that no federal agency tracks the occurrence of freshwater algal blooms, but experts say they’re getting worse, driven by fertilizer and manure running off farm fields and into lakes and streams. Earth’s warming climate multiplies the effects.

Dead zones in the oceans are also a direct result of the farm chemicals that pour off agricultural land. The most notorious is the one in the Gulf of Mexico, which grew to the size of New Jersey before the current drought. As a 2007 report by MSNBC described:

The nation’s corn crop is fertilized with millions of pounds of nitrogen-based fertilizer. And when that nitrogen runs off fields in Corn Belt states, it makes its way to the Mississippi River and eventually pours into the Gulf, where it contributes to a growing “dead zone” – a 7,900-square-mile patch so depleted of oxygen that fish, crabs and shrimp suffocate.

Industrial agriculture, not manufacturing, gas drilling or mining, is the largest contributor to America’s water pollution problem. And despite its high cost to taxpayers and businesses, most farm operations are exempt from the federal Clean Water Act, and state governments have little authority to compel farmers to control contamination from their fields.

Iowa, in particular, is a major contributor to the Gulf dead zone, and state Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey recently copped to the economic impact that its farmers’ pollution has on Gulf fisheries and the jobs that depend on them:

Read more

The drastic melting of Arctic sea ice has finally ended for the year, scientists announced Wednesday, but not before demolishing the previous record — and setting off new warnings about the rapid pace of change in the region. [New York Times]

“The Arctic is the earth’s air-conditioner,” said Walt Meier, a research scientist at the snow and ice center, an agency sponsored by the government. “We’re losing that. It’s not just that polar bears might go extinct, or that native communities might have to adapt, which we’re already seeing — there are larger climate effects.”

Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) off the East Coast from North Carolina to the Gulf of Maine were the hottest ever recorded for the first six months of 2012, according to NOAA’s latest Ecosystem Advisory. Above-average temperatures were found everywhere: from the sea surface to the ocean bottom and out beyond the Gulf Stream. [Mother Jones]

This summer’s historic drought and record feed grain prices prompted cattle feedlots to cut August purchases to the lowest since 2008 and forced hog producers to rush animals to slaughter swelling pork supplies. [Reuters]

Crews scrambled to make repairs Wednesday near the busiest Mississippi River lock shut down because of damage blamed partly on the summer drought, snarling hundreds of barges and tugboats in a backlog that was growing worse by the hour. [Washington Post]

Smoke from forest fires burning in Central Washington is creating hazardous air-quality conditions and sepulchral skies over much of the Wenatchee Valley. [Seattle Times]

Lawmakers, notably Democrats, are “running away from the issue” of climate change, consumer advocate and former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader said Tuesday. [The Hill]

Mitt Romney’s campaign is airing two ads in eastern Ohio that include footage of the coal miners who lost pay because he campaigned at their mine. [Columbus Dispatch]

It’s admittedly not on a par with the direct threats posed by rising seas or melting icecaps or extreme weather, but with autumn now upon us, it’s worth noting that climate change could also affect the brilliant foliage that paints forests from the Ozarks to the Appalachians with vibrant color every fall. [Climate Central]

A new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tries to figure out what, exactly, will happen as countries become increasingly urbanized between now and 2030. [Wonk Blog]