Big Bird might have been one the most popular trends on Twitter during the first presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. But as tonight’s wide ranging discussion on domestic issues unfolded, #climatesilence got some decent play as well. Sadly, not because the candidates broke their silence on the issue.

Here are two tweets that sum up the lack of attention on climate issues:

And this one from climate activist Bill McKibben:

If you watched the real-time reaction to the debates, the disappointment among folks within the energy and environment community over the lack of attention to climate was palpable. Even with 160,000 signatures delivered to PBS’ Jim Lehrer calling on him to ask the candidates about climate change, the issue was completely ignored during the 90 minute conversation — continuing a long streak of silence throughout the campaign.

Apparently, neither of the candidates — particularly Obama — has been watching the polls showing that climate could be a major factor in how undecided and Independent voters cast their ballots.

Energy issues were sprinkled throughout the debate, however. The mentions were focused mostly on domestic drilling and clean energy spending. Obama stuck to his talking points about developing “new sources of energy,” repealing billions in tax credits for the oil & gas industry, and supporting an “all of the above” energy strategy. But other than making fluffy statements about supporting clean energy, Obama didn’t make any specific claims on the issue that required fact checking.

Romney, on the other hand, made a number of more specific, inaccurate statements on the issues:

1. “Gas prices have doubled under Obama.”

When Obama came into office, he was dealing with the impact of the greatest financial crisis and economic collapse since the Great Depression. That’s why gas prices were so low; demand had declined substantially. Even the Cato Institute and the Wall Street Journal have pointed out this obvious fact: “When Mr. Obama was inaugurated, demand was weak due to the recession. But now it’s stronger, and thus the price is higher.”

Here’s a chart that shows what happened to gas prices during the recession:

And as many analysts have pointed out, presidents have little control over oil and gasoline prices: Oil prices are set on the global market, which is controlled by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, a cartel. High oil prices are responsible for high gasoline prices: The cost of crude oil was 64 percent of the cost of a gallon of gas in September 2012.

2. “All of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land.”

Under Obama, domestic energy production has soared: The number of oil drilling rigs have quadrupled in number over the past three years. This has brought U.S. oil imports to the lowest level since 1996. And the Congressional Research Service issued a report showing that oil drilling on federal lands is higher, not lower. According to CRS, production from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. In addition, the oil and gas industry is sitting on 7,000 approved permits to drill, that it hasn’t begun exploring or developing.

3. “About half of [the clean energy companies that] have been invested in have gone out of business.”

This is blatantly false. In this statement, Romney is conflating the loan guarantee program with all economy-wide clean energy companies. And even when isolating the loan guarantee program that supported the bankrupt solar company Solyndra, an independent investigation led by John McCain’s former finance chairman found that these investments will cost $2 billion less than initially expected. That’s because most of the loan guarantees are going toward companies developing large-scale electricity generation projects with long-term agreements for the energy.

(Michael Grunwald, who literally wrote the book on the stimulus package, estimates that about 1 percent of the stimulus-funded clean-energy firms failed, not 50 percent. “Seriously, that was the lie of the night,” he said.)

4. “In one year, you provided $90 billion in tax breaks to green energy.”

This is also a piece of masterful spin, though not an outright lie. Since the stimulus package was passed, the Department of Energy has put $90 billion toward grants, loan guarantees, R&D programs, competitive prizes, and demonstration projects — everything we need in order to build a foundation to allow clean energy to scale. They are not all tax breaks and they were not all implemented in one year as Romney claimed. And according to the Government Accountability Office (h/t Washington Post), fossil fuel subsidies outnumbered clean energy investments 4 to 1 before the stimulus package was put in place.

What have these clean energy investments spawned? Renewable electricity has doubled in the last four years; we’ve built some of the most innovative “first of a kind” renewable energy projects in the world; content sourced from domestic wind manufacturing has doubled; we’ve created more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs in the solar industry; and leveraged $100 billion in private investments.

Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, contributed to this piece.

National Journal has helpfully published its “Debate Drinking-Game Guide: Colorado Edition” with the delightful image above. Their game has only two problems.

First, there’s a lot of that extraneous non-energy/climate stuff. I mean if you’re gonna have a drink every time “A candidate says the number 47″ or “Either candidate mentions his wife by first name” or “Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton are invoked favorably by either candidate,” it’s gonna be a long night or, rather, a short night for you.

Still, the guide helpfully urges people to have one drink if:

• Mitt Romney makes a joke about windmills.
• Mitt Romney brings up Solyndra.
• Either candidate mentions the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Of course there’s nothing about climate change but what do you expect from the lamestream media? Oh, wait, NJ wrote this 2 years ago:  “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones.”

The second problem is that NJ only proposes things that make you drunk. I like to also propose things that keep you sober.

Here goes:

1. If moderator Jim Lehrer asks a question on “climate change” or “global warming,” down a shot (but if he has some wishy-washy formulation like “some scientists say” then immediately take some ipecac).
2. If Lehrer doesn’t ask a question, but Obama brings up the subject himself to attack Romney, down two shots.
3. If Romney unequivocally states he agrees with the scientific understanding of manmade global warming — or Obama unequivocally states he won’t approve Keystone if reelected — you get a weekend in Las Vegas with Charlie Sheen or Chelsea Handler.

On the other hand:

1. Every time Obama talks up domestic oil production, drink one cup of coffee.
2. Every time Obama talks up domestic natural gas production, drink one cup of non-herbal tea.
3. If Obama says “all of the above” in regard to his energy policy, take two aspirin.
4. If Obama says “clean coal,” take two Alleve.

Remember, don’t listen to debates on the radio and drive!

The “good” news:  U.S oil production is at a 10 year high. The inevitable result: No significant impact on oil prices.

Now, for Fox News, this means Obama’s policies are to blame. But as we reported back in March, Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal and the Koch-Fueled Cato Institute agree: “It’s Not Obama’s Fault That Crude Oil Prices Have Increased”:

WSJ: “U.S. gasoline prices, like prices throughout the advanced economies, are determined by global market forces. It is hard to see how Mr. Obama’s policies can be blamed.”

Cato: “Is President Obama responsible for spiraling price of gasoline? Republicans say yes, but the facts say no.”

For more, see “20 Experts Who Say Drilling Won’t Lower Gas Prices,” which notes:

In a pretty impressive act of journalism, the Associated Press recently conducted a “statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production.” The result: “No statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.”

Here are recent oil prices:

Note how oil prices surged to record levels under Bush.

Obama has overseen a massive expansion of drilling — which has won him no friends on the left or right. Go figure!

Last year, the Wall Street Journal had the amazing chart on the right. “The figure reflects a huge surge in U.S. oil drilling, up nearly 60% in the past year and the highest total since at least 1987, when oil services company  Baker Hughes Inc. began keeping track,” notes the WSJ.

The fact is oil prices soared again despite both record drilling and the highest domestic oil production levels in almost a decade.  It should be obvious that yet more drilling can’t have any significant impact on oil prices — particularly since the U.S. Energy Information Administration has been making that precise point for years now (see EIA: Full offshore drilling will not lower gasoline prices at all in 2020 and only 3 cents in 2030!).

Related Post:

• “More Drilling Won’t Lower Gas Prices“: Soaring Domestic Production Has Failed to Ease Pain at the Pump

This year alone, Michigan’s two largest utilities have increased rates by more than 10 percent, adding between $9 and $11 to the average residential monthly utility bill.

So what would happen if Michigan voters approved Proposal 3, a ballot initiative that would increase the state’s renewable electricity targets to 25 percent by 2025? According to a group supporting the measure, rates would only rise by 1 percent — not in one year, but over the total life of the program.

That’s equivalent to about 50 cents on the average monthly bill.

That projection comes from a new report authored by two utility analysts and released by the Michigan Environmental Council.

The graph below illustrates what the rate impact may look like over the life of the program. In the first decade, the upfront cost of implementation may cause a minor rate increase of just over .5% (with a legal cap of 1%) — translating to roughly 50 cents per month extra for the average residential energy user. But after 2026, due to the projected cost decreases in renewable energy and projected cost increases in delivery of coal and natural gas, ratepayers start saving money:

If this is such a good thing for ratepayers, what’s the issue? Well, the state’s biggest utilities, Consumers Energy and DTE Energy, are heavily campaigning against it. That’s because Michigan gets about 59 percent of its electricity from coal — a resource that would likely see a substantial decline if renewable energy targets were increased.

That dependence on coal is a major part of the reason why Consumers Energy and DTE Energy continue to raise rates. According to this latest report, the cost of coal delivery to power plants in the state has jumped by 71 percent since 2006. Consumers Energy has projected fuel cost increases to total around $530 million over the next four years — resulting in a 3 percent rate increase each year.

This is also the reason why contracts for renewable energy are coming in less than the cost of new coal. In February, the Michigan Public Service Commission issued a progress report of the state’s current renewable electricity standard requiring 10 percent penetration by 2015, finding that the cost of wind, solar, and hydro “is cheaper than a new coal-fired generation” in the state.

In fact, on multiple occasions since 2008, Consumers Energy reported that the cost of meeting Michigan’s current renewable electricity targets has been far lower than expected. In May, the company reduced its renewable electricity surcharge by 13 cents. It also reduced the surcharge in May of 2011, citing the lower-than-expected cost of meeting targets.

It appears Michigan consumers — even if they don’t know the specifics of the costs of each technology — broadly support a shift to renewables. According to a poll conducted in September, 55 percent of registered Michigan voters said they would vote “yes” on proposal 3, the ballot initiative that would increase the state’s renewable electricity targets to 25 percent.

In 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu best summed up the looming impacts of climate change: “I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen.”

Of course, Chu was talking about the problem. But his comments accurately reflect our perception of the solutions as well.

Steady reductions in global warming pollution don’t come from simply sprinkling a few renewables on top of our existing energy system. It’s going to take a pretty dramatic re-thinking of how we design cities, build transportation systems, adapt agricultural operations, and deploy efficiency and clean energy. And that takes an enormous amount of energy and time — far more than the four-year political time cycles we often think within.

However, with the very notion that we need to deploy these solutions now under attack on the national political stage, we’re still far from collectively realizing the scope of that change.

Enter U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Since 2005, America has seen a nearly 9 percent decline in annual CO2 emissions economy-wide. That’s due to a number of things: Appliances are getting more efficient, vehicles are using less fuel, companies are figuring out better ways to package and ship products, and we’re steadily transitioning our electricity sector from coal to natural gas and renewables.

Oh, the worst financial meltdown and economic crisis since the Great Depression had a pretty big impact too.

Aside from the whole economic crisis, all of these other factors are positive (depending, of course, on the true environmental impact of natural gas) and represent a broader shift toward a cleaner, more efficient economy. But they’re also somewhat worrisome.

First, they represent incremental change. Any change in the right direction is good. But in order to realize rapid de-carbonization, it’s going to take a lot more than a modest increase in the use of insulation and better-performing washing machines. It takes a pretty serious economy-wide undertaking — something that we haven’t quite “gripped in our gut” as Secretary Chu might say.

Second, most of the factors contributing to the decline in CO2 emissions have been enhanced by the economic slowdown. Those efficient washing machines, automobiles, and cleaner energy sources had a bigger impact because people were driving and consuming less.

So what happens when the economy really picks up steam? Are those carbon reductions going to last? A new report out from Climate Central argues no, they won’t necessarily last without some more dramatic changes.

Here are four charts showing why.

1. We are still utterly dependent on fossil fuels.

There’s no doubt about it, we’ve made great strides in deploying energy efficiency and bringing the cost of renewables down. But we have only scratched the surface on the kind of deep cuts in fossil fuel use that we need to see. (That’s part of the reason why scientists say building a pipeline like Keystone XL — a straw into one of the biggest and dirtiest pools of carbon on earth — is such a bad idea). Climate Central’s Eric Larson explains in the report:

Read more

One of these air pollution rules is juuuust right.

by Danielle Baussan

Call it the “Goldilocks Conundrum.”

Four years ago, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the George W. Bush-era Clean Air Interstate Rule for not sufficiently protecting downwind states from upwind soot and smog. However, in August, the same court determined that the Obama Administration’s Cross State Air Pollution Rule isn’t protecting upwind states from having to reduce pollution too much.

While the DC Circuit Court waits for the porridge to be “just right,” public health suffers due to unchecked air pollution.

That’s because the rule, known as CSAPR, is just right, and an appeal to this faulty decision should be filed by the Environmental Protection Agency. An appeal or rehearing must be filed by October 5th, but EPA has not yet done so, leaving the public and power plant owners wondering if it will fight to save CSAPR or re-start the multi-year process for a new rule.

Let’s look at the legal background on this important issue.

On August 21st, the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in EME Homer City Generation, L.P.  vs. EPA. CSAPR was designed by EPA to prevent 34,000 premature deaths and 400,000 asthma attacks each year. The rule would have helped downwind states by limiting sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution coming from power plants in upwind states.  These pollutants are the main ingredients in soot and smog, and the rule would have improved the health of millions of Americans (see table 1).

Yet the court found in a 2-to-1 ruling that EPA methodology used to limit upwind states’ pollution could result in cutting too much pollution, i.e., by reducing more pollution than what air quality standards prescribe.

The court also found that EPA erred in developing a federal implementation plan to require upwind states to reduce power plant pollution, rather than first allowing states to form their own implementation plans.

Justice Judith Rogers vigorously dissented from this ruling.  She accused the majority of “ignor[ing] jurisdictional limits [and] substantive provisions that Congress wrote in clear terms, ” adding, “the result [of the majority opinion] is the endorsement of a ‘maximum delay’ strategy for regulated entities, rewarding States and industry for cloaking their objections throughout years of administrative rulemaking procedures and blindsiding the agency…”

The Obama Administration should appeal the ruling to overturn it and make CSAPR a reality, rather than continuing the pattern of rulemakings and rejections.  However, an appeal of this ruling is no guarantee of success. The EPA can petition for a rehearing by the original three-judge panel of Judges Janice Rogers, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh or petition en banc for a hearing before all eight active judges on the D.C. Circuit. Five judges would have to agree to an en banc hearing, and five of D.C. Circuit judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

The Administration isn’t the only entity that can appeal the ruling. Several environmental groups seem poised to file their own appeals. Yet silence from the EPA would undermine the Administration’s faith in its own ruling and further endanger a successful appeal. The Obama Administration should support the EPA ruling and fight for the health of millions of children, senior citizens and other vulnerable people.

Regardless of what happens by October 5^th, one thing is clear: cross state air pollution is no fairy tale. If there is no petition for a rehearing, en banc review, or writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, or if such petitions are rejected, the D.C. Circuit Court has directed EPA to continue the CAIR standard while EPA develops a “valid replacement,” upholding its reasoning in the CAIR decision to “temporarily defeat the enhanced protection of the environmental values covered by [CAIR].”

The Court does not deny the need for EPA to develop a cross-state air pollution rule; it just doesn’t think any are “juuust right,” as Goldilocks would say.

Though we may not know what will happen in the next chapter of this story, its moral is crystal clear: upwind state pollution can endanger the health of people living downwind. What’s less clear is when the “happily ever after” ending resulting in more health safeguards will occur.

Danielle Baussan is the Associate Director of Government Relations at the Center for American Progress.

by Mindy Lubber, via CommonWeath Magazine

Rising seas will bring big changes to Boston, and sooner than you might think. Climate change is expected to raise average global sea levels between two and six feet by century’s end, and a recent US Geological Survey study suggests that the waters around the Hub and other East Coast cities are rising even faster than the global average.

To put that in perspective, if seas rise just 2.5 feet, a strong Nor’easter could put much of Back Bay, East Boston, South Boston, Chelsea and Cambridge under water. Hundreds of billions of dollars of real estate and vital infrastructure, from sanitation, sewer and water systems to highways, tunnels and Logan Airport, are at risk.

Faced with these dire predictions, some progress has been made to boost Boston’s resiliency. East Boston salt marshes are being restored for better flood control. Waterfront structures are being elevated, including the new Spaulding Rehab Center in Charlestown, which was raised two feet to prevent flood damage. Like the New England Aquarium, it also installed electrical systems on its roof. Developers investing in the city’s waterfront Innovation District are being required to take similar steps.

The Mayor’s Green Ribbon Commission, on which I serve, is also working to build private sector support for efforts to adapt to climate change. One group in particular has been feeling the effects of climate change for several years – insurers. Insurers often carry the costs of climate risk, but by managing that risk, they can bring enormous leverage to bear on whether and how cities and developers prepare for the consequences of rising seas.

There’s no doubt that the stakes are high: “Stormy Future,” a new report on the insurance sector from my organization, Ceres, indicates that 2011 was the second costliest year ever for insured losses from natural catastrophes globally. In the US alone, extreme weather events cost property/casualty insurers more than $32 billion in losses. The science is clear: Climate change increases the risk of extreme weather. Extreme weather increases potential losses. If insurance companies hope to protect their clients—and their business models— they must adapt.

In hurricane zones, insurers are already catching on to the value of preparation. Before Hurricane Katrina, Rhode Island insurer FM Global invested an average of $7,500 per site in hurricane loss-prevention at Louisiana properties it insured. When the storm struck, it reduced its clients’ losses by 85 percent compared to properties without such preparations.

To reduce risks even further, insurers can also work directly with government officials on several key initiatives. First, they must attack the root of the sea rise problem by acting on carbon pollution, the primary driver of a warming world. Boston has set a goal to reduce carbon emissions by at least 25 percent by the year 2020 and 80 percent by the year 2050. Other communities—and corporations—must join this effort to prevent further climate impacts.

Second, cities need lasting changes to building codes and land use planning, and with the right policies, insurers stand to benefit. The Aquarium and Spaulding Rehab are already implementing best practices that should become requisites for new development projects.

Next, updated and improved flood mapping are essential. City planners rely on flood maps from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other resources to determine zoning and building codes. Insurers use them to set rates from Cape Cod to Florida, but much of the available information is now out-of-date. It is imperative that flood maps be updated soon to reflect the new reality, including new projected flood lines.

Other cities are looking at more elaborate solutions. After Hurricane Irene triggered New York City’s first mandatory evacuation last year, officials are now considering building solid storm barriers across the harbor to be deployed during storms. Such a barrier might protect runways at the city’s three major airports (including Newark) and other vital infrastructure, but it comes with a nearly $10 billion price tag.

With other adaptation initiatives already underway, Boston’s leadership is right in thinking we can’t wait for big pie-in-the-sky solutions like multi-billion dollar barriers. Those inevitably lead us to endless debate over a mega-project’s merits, while distracting us from the problem at hand.

To adapt to rising seas, planners and insurers must act today with the tools we have now. Or else, grab a bucket and start bailing.

Mindy Lubber is President of Ceres, a Boston nonprofit group advocating for sustainability leadership from businesses and investors. She is also Director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk. This piece initially ran in CommonWealth magazine and was reprinted with permission.

by Michael Conathan

If half the Grand Canyon crumbled to nothing in less than three decades, would we stand up and pay attention? If Teddy and Abe’s heads eroded off Mount Rushmore would we step in to save George and Tom?

Sadly, that’s what is happening to one of the world’s great natural treasures.

A new study released yesterday by the Australian Institute of Marine Science shows that in just the last 27 years, the Great Barrier Reef has lost half of its coral.

Coral reef degradation is unfortunately not a new phenomenon. A 2011 report from the World Resources Institute found that three-quarters of the world’s coral reefs are threatened by increased stress from pollution and climate change. Corals are very sensitive to temperature, but because they are stationary, they cannot migrate to find their prime habitat. So as ocean temperatures warm, the coral organisms die, leaving just the white skeletal structures, a phenomenon known as bleaching.

Yet according to this new study, the degradation is less directly linked to these usual suspects. Just 10 percent of the loss was attributable to bleaching. The study found coastal storms were the leading culprit that caused 48 percent of the damage, and the remaining 42 percent was a result of an exploding population of the crown of thorns starfish that preys on coral.

Don’t mistake these causes for reason to think climate change isn’t responsible. After all, an increase in intensity of coastal storms is undoubtedly a symptom of planetary warming.

Controlling the starfish problem, it turns out, would allow the reef’s degradation — pegged at losses of between four and eight percent of coral cover per year — to reverse. Even at current levels of temperature and acidity, we could see slow coral growth. The starfish problem may be slightly easier to manage than reversing global emissions of greenhouse gasses, but it will require action sure to be unpopular with agricultural interests. As CNN reports:

According to the study, the starfish in its larval stage feeds on plankton, populations of which surge when fertilizer runoff floods the coastal ocean waters with nutrients. So plentiful plankton can lead to swarms of hungry starfish.

The last time the starfish bloomed in 2003, the government spent more than $3 million to try to control the population. No easy feat. But the motivation to succeed may be as great as the Great Barrier Reef itself. In addition to the inherent value of protecting a tremendous natural resource, and the environmental benefits it provides from fish habitat to protection against storm surges, the reef is also a major economic engine in northeast Australia. According to Nick Heath, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund Australia, “Sixty thousand jobs in the tourism industry depend on us acting with urgency over the next few years.”

Oddly, the Australian government is also planning coal and natural gas export facilities that would bring a constant stream of ships across the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

With all these environmental threats and new industrial activity, apparently we’ll have to be content with renaming one of our most spectacular natural wonders the Incredibly Shrinking Barrier Reef.

Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress

The presidential debates are expected to cover a wide range of topics, from the economy to foreign policy to health care. Wednesday night’s debate will focus on domestic policy — and one topic that’s likely to come up is energy. [National Public Radio]

Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), who’s trailing GOP rival Deb Fischer in their race for the state’s open Senate seat,  turned to his opponent’s denial of the human impact on global warming to gain some ground. [The Hill]

Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a conservative group backed by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, has pledged to spend nearly $1 million in Arkansas. [Washington Post]

Louisiana’s Republican U.S. senator blasted oil giant BP PLC on Tuesday for what he called its attempt to run from its full cleanup responsibilities for the nation’s worst offshore spill, the 2010 disaster that left the Gulf Coast heavily oiled. [Fuel Fix]

A Chinese company sued Barack Obama on Tuesday for blocking its windfarm project in Oregon on the grounds it was a national security threat. [Guardian]

DuPont Co., battling Monsanto  Co. for the lead in U.S. corn seed, said its Aquamax seeds boosted yields of the grain by more than 8 percent this year as the U.S. drought provided a test of the new technology. [Businessweek]

For those trying to interpret the global carbon budget, a key question revolves around how much carbon dioxide a tree or moss or shrub can pull from the air. A large-scale experiment, running for more than a dozen years, has found that this value may be much less than some scientists had anticipated. [Smithsonian]

Climate change is blamed for melting ice, shrinking animals and brewing more intense storms around the globe — but is it slowing the top finish times at the Boston Marathon? [Live Science]

The Weather Channel announced Tuesday that it is going to assign names to winter storms during the 2012-13 winter season, in much the same way tropical storms and hurricanes are named. [Climate Central]

U.S. auto sales last month posted their best showing in 4-1/2 years, helped by cheap financing, rising consumer confidence and a major rebound by Toyota Motor Corp. [Reuters]

The phrase “organized crime” typically conjures up images of drug trafficking or stolen-car rings. But it turns out that the illegal logging trade is just as lucrative — and far more destructive. Between 50 to 90 percent of forestry in tropical areas is now controlled by criminal groups, according to a new report from the United Nations and Interpol. [Wonk Blog]