Perhaps you thought that the whole “planet isn’t warming” meme was killed by this summer’s bombshell Koch-funded study. After all, it found ”global warming is real,” “on the high end” and “essentially all” due to carbon pollution.

Sadly, denial springs eternal. Long-debunked denier David Rose has an article in the Daily Mail, “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released … and here is the chart to prove it.”

The piece is so misleading, even the UK Met Office felt a need to instantly debunk it with a blog post that included this chart.

UK Met Office graph showing years ranked in order of global temperature.

Since Rose managed to find one misleading chart to push his myth, I thought I would dig up ten serious ones that show the reverse, including the top chart from Skeptical Science, the great Australian blog, which is derived from the data in the Koch-funded study.

Note: “Skeptics” is an Aussie word for denier or disinformer. The British have their own words — Rose or Mail:

• David Rose destroys his credibility and the Daily Mail’s with error-riddled climate science reporting
• Daily Mail Slammed for Ignoring Scientific Truth We’re Still Warming and Human Emissions Will Dwarf Any Solar Changes

So one has to assume going in that any climate piece in the Mail with Rose’s name on it is somewhere between misinformation and disinformation. The latest piece tends toward the latter. Heck, even Judith Curry complains she was misquoted, as Media Matters notes.

The Met Office, part of the UK Defence Ministry, explained, it’s absurd to look at a cherry-picked “trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina)”:

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

The warming trend is clear in a chart from an earlier Met Office post “Noughties confirmed as the warmest decade on record“:

Here’s an analogy to the notion it hasn’t warmed from the El-Nino-fueled summer of 1997 through the La-Nina-cooled summer of 2012. Imagine your kid got 11 B’s and 1 A+ in 9th grade science class. Then, in 10th grade science, she gets 9 A’s and 2 A+’s — but her last grade was “just” an A. Would you say she is doing better in science class or worse in science class?

If you prefer your charts from U.S. agencies using the good ‘ole Fahrenheit scale, here’s NOAA’s version of the previous chart, which notes “Every year of 2000s [was] warmer than 1990s average”:

Read more

The NY Times published a sobering piece recently about Tatoosh Island off the coast of Washington state. Tatoosh is a global “warming bellwether”:

But for over four decades, with the blessing of Makah leaders, Tatoosh has been the object of intense biological scrutiny, and scientists say they are seeing disturbing declines across species — changes that could prove a bellwether for oceanic change globally.

The Makah hold treaty rights to the island.

Among the declines the researchers are noticing: historically hardy populations of gulls and murres are only half what they were 10 years ago, and only a few chicks hatched this spring. Mussel shells are notably thinner, and recently the mussels seem to be detaching from rocks more easily and with greater frequency.

Goose barnacles are also suffering, and so are the hard, splotchy, wine-colored coralline algae, which appear like graffiti along rocky shorelines.

This particular whodunit appears to be largely solved: Humans in the Ecosystem with CO2. Global warming is “capable of wrecking the marine ecosystem and depriving future generations of the harvest of the seas” (see Ocean dead zones to expand, “remain for thousands of years”).

In this case, it’s ocean acidification, a subject we have covered extensively — see, for instance, Geological Society study finds acidifying oceans on track for marine biological meltdown “by end of century,” as co-author warns: “Unless we curb carbon emissions we risk mass extinctions, degrading coastal waters and encouraging outbreaks of toxic jellyfish and algae.”

The major media haven’t been so focused on this major threat to humanity (see ”Kardashians Get 40 Times More News Coverage Than Ocean Acidification“).

So it’s good to see the Times run with this story and explain the climate change angle so clearly:

Read more

by Whitney Allen

With an overwhelming majority of Americans in favor of seeing more energy from wind and solar, individuals and communities are often frustrated by a lack of renewable energy options from their available power company choices.

To allow their constituents greater purchasing power, several states have implemented Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) models of buying electricity. This model allows communities to pick from several utility companies in a competitive market to ensure that the energy goals of the customers are met, be they lower rates, local job creation, or increased supply from renewable sources.

What separates CCA agreements from the municipal utility model is that CCA’s generally take over the existing utility’s role as provider, while still relying on the previous infrastructure and maintenance of the existing investor owned utility (IOU), keeping costs down and relieving the burden that municipal agreements place on the communities. The agreements typically come in the form of either “opt-in” agreements, where individual energy consumers decide whether or not to participate in an alternative energy program, or “opt-out” agreements where citizens are enrolled in the program collectively as soon as legislation is passed, but are given several opportunities to choose not to participate.

CCA agreements can offer customers access to energy generated from renewable sources by unifying voices and giving them the collective power to ensure their goals are achieved. Of the six states that currently have CCA’s, four of them have green power initiatives, most with the option of receiving 100% power from renewable sources. The CCA’s allowed these communities to establish the priority of receiving clean, sustainable energy and work around the obstacles of existing IOU’s.

CCA’s also give energy consumers the ability to customize their plans to maximize the benefit to the community at large. Several programs, such as that in the town of Oak Park, IL, have managed to achieve the goal of electricity from 100% renewable sources while still providing a savings of 2 cents/kWh less than with the existing utility.

Officials from Oak Park said that, “when bids were received from half a dozen state-certified energy providers, the difference between a mix of traditional power generation sources and all-green alternatives was so small […] going with the renewable option was an easy choice.” Participants in the Oak Park CCA program are expected to save $4.5 million on their electricity bills over the next two years.

CCA’s also allow communities to prioritize energy from local renewables projects and assist in the development of new projects. For example, those served by Massachusetts’ Cape & Vineyard Electricity Cooperative have set the goal of no fewer than 20 local wind turbines contributing to their supply over the next 5-10 years, along with contracts for the development of 18.2MW of local solar projects.  As the Institute for Local Self-Reliance states, CCA’s “[place] authority in the hands of those who will feel the impact of their decisions, making investment in renewable electricity much more likely.”

Legislation allowing the Community Choice Aggregation model has been passed in six states: California, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Rhode Island. Because of the success of the programs in these states, talk of similar legislation has also begun in Utah, New York, and Colorado. Naysayers struck down CCA provisions in Pennsylvania on the grounds that “opt-out” rules did not provide customers with enough information and that decisions would be made without their consent, despite repeated assurances that “customers receive multiple notifications of opportunities to remain with their existing service and that the offering of CCA service must be approved by a public vote.”

The next big step for community choice could come from Chicago. The Windy City will be voting in November on whether or not to provide an “opt-out” community choice alternative to the current electricity provider, ComEd. Program advocates Chicago Clean Power Coalition say that customers could create a plan that invests in renewable energy, create local jobs, and save money for the more than 1.1 million potential customers eligible for the switch. The move could be a great one for a city with numerous green initiatives and could further Mayor Emanuel’s desire for Chicago to be the “greenest city in the world.”

Community choice aggregation is still a limited option. But it’s getting more interest from localities — and it has the potential to significantly expand access to clean energy among a broad swath of Americans.

by Senator Bernie Sanders

The Big Energy industries (oil, coal and gas) along with their political allies like Mitt Romney are waging war against sustainable energy and the need to transform our energy system and reverse global warming. In many instances they are aided and abetted by the very powerful nuclear power industry.

One of their main lines of attack (used repeatedly by Romney in his first debate with President Obama) is that the federal government is picking energy “winners and losers.” In fact, Romney has said he will not invest in “chasing fads and picking winners and losers” among energy technologies and he will allow the free market to determine energy development.

Romney is right about one thing. The government does pick winners and losers in the energy sector. What Romney has not told the American people, however, is that the big winners of federal support are the already immensely profitable fossil fuel and nuclear industries, not sustainable energy.

As a member of both the Senate Energy and Environment committees, I am working to stop the handouts to the fossil fuel industry. I have introduced legislation called the End Polluter Welfare Act. Rep. Keith Ellison filed the companion bill in the House of Representatives. Our measure calls for the elimination for all subsidies to the oil, gas and coal industries. Using the best available estimates from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation and other budget experts, we found over $113 billion in federal subsidies will go to fossil fuel corporations over the next 10 years alone. These subsidies benefit some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet, including the five largest oil corporations, which made a combined profit of $1 trillion over the last decade. Unlike sustainable energy incentives, many of these fossil fuel subsidies are written permanently into the tax code by industry lobbyists, which means they never expire.

Let me give you just a few examples of outrageously strong federal support for Big Energy companies:

• BP, after committing one of the worst environmental disasters in the modern history of America, was able to take a large tax deduction on the money it spent cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
• Coal companies are able to sign single-bid sweetheart leases to mine on federal lands without paying fair value in royalties to the taxpayers of this country.
• In 2009, Exxon-Mobil, one of the most profitable corporations in this country, paid no federal income taxes, and in fact received a rebate from the IRS. Many other large and very profitable oil companies also have managed to avoid paying federal income taxes in certain years.

But it is not just fossil fuel companies. The nuclear industry also benefits from massive corporate welfare. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service reports that the nuclear industry has received over $95 billion (in 2011 dollars) in federal research and development support in the last 65 years. Nuclear corporations currently have access to billions in federal loan guarantees to build new plants and enrich uranium. They also have federal tax incentives for mining uranium, producing nuclear electricity and even decommissioning a plant.

Perhaps most significantly, the nuclear industry would collapse tomorrow without a huge nuclear insurance program from the federal government. The Price-Anderson Act could, in the event of an American nuclear disaster, force taxpayers to pay out tens or even hundreds of billions in damage claims. Nuclear power is so risky that none of Mitt Romney’s Wall Street or free market friends will provide that type of insurance.

Let’s be clear. The war against sustainable energy by the Big Energy companies has been extremely successful. During the last year, with almost unanimous Republican opposition, Congress has not been able to extend a very successful program, the 1603 grant, which had supported over 20,000 sustainable energy projects and tens of thousands of jobs. Congress also has been unable to extend the Production Tax Credit which primarily supports wind energy. The result has been significant layoffs and cancelled projects in the wind industry.

What has not been often enough pointed out is that despite all the opposition, all of the lies coming from fossil fuel sponsored think tanks and the right-wing media, this country has made significant and important progress in moving toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

That progress is critical in the fight to reverse global warming, which the vast majority of scientists who study the issue consider to be one of the greatest threats to our planet. With strong federal intervention, we have made some good progress in recent years, but clearly much more needs to be done. Let me just mention a few energy success stories.

Read more

U.S. oil production is on track to hit its highest level since 1993. What has that done to gas prices for consumers? Virtually nothing.

Yet again, analysts are pointing out the obvious: even with massive increases in domestic oil drilling, the impact on gasoline prices is minimal. That’s because oil is a global market and U.S. supplies — even with historic increases — still don’t make a major dent. The Wall Street Journal reports:

U.S. crude production is expected to rise 12% this year and 8% in 2013, when it will hit the highest level since 1993, according to government figures. The price of West Texas crude, the U.S. benchmark, has fallen 7% this year, held down by rising supplies from new drilling methods.

Yet gasoline prices currently average nearly $4 per gallon nationwide. Rising U.S. crude production may seem like an attractive antidote, but it is proving ineffective on its own at a time when the world’s appetite for energy remains voracious and Middle East tension is a reminder that supplies could be disrupted.

“Even the significant increase in U.S. production is a small part of the world oil market,” said Severin Borenstein, co-director of the Energy Institute at the Haas School of Business.

So what would happen if we built more pipelines to transport supplies around the country? Surely that would have an impact?

To be sure, unclogging the Midwest bottleneck wouldn’t necessarily have a big impact on retail gasoline prices nationwide, either. Even if far more Midwest oil could get to the wider market, the impact would be “in the pennies. A penny might be it,” said Mr. Borenstein.

Experts are saying, well, what experts have been saying for some time. Even if we opened up every inch of the U.S. to oil drilling, there would be minimal downward pressure on gas prices. According to a 2009 report from the Energy Information Administration, an aggressive offshore drilling policy would only lower the price of a gallon of gasoline by about three cents in 2030.

A recent investigation from the Associated Press found “no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump” when looking at more than three decades of data. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have also reported extensively on the failure of domestic oil drilling to lower gas prices.

However, reality can’t stand in the way of election-season posturing and gimmickry over gas prices. Last month, Americans for Prosperity held swing-state campaign events in which they offered consumers gasoline for $1.84 per gallon. The organization, which is backed by the oil baron Koch Brothers, absurdly claimed it is “Obama’s green energy policies” driving up the price of gas. In fact, we are drilling more oil under the Obama Administration than at any point under the George W. Bush Administration.

The evidence is clear. Despite what the oil industry and other interest groups representing fossil fuels claim, more domestic drilling is doing very little to help consumers.

Charles and David Koch

The Koch brothers’ $60 million pledge to defeat President Obama — along with their political network’s $400 million spending — make them two of the most influential conservatives this election.

Not content with their unprecedented influence in politics, the Kochs have also taken to influencing the votes of their employees. According to In These Times, Koch Industries sent 45,000 mailers to employees at Koch subsidiary Georgia Pacific, urging votes for Romney and other conservative candidates. The letter warns ominously of “consequences” for the workers if Republicans lose. 

The Koch mailer is one of several recent examples of executives warning that employees may lose their jobs if Republicans do not win in November. Here is an excerpt of the letter:

While we are typically told before each Presidential election that it is important and historic, I believe the upcoming election will determine what kind of America future generations will inherit.

If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects, and excessively hinder free trade, then many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation, and other ills.

In These Times also reports that employees are restricted in their political free speech on social media outlets.

“It’s just they can intimidate people this way and they can make life miserable for you. The law would be strong enough to protect them probably, but you could be looking at being without your job for nearly a year,” said one Georgia Pacific employee.

One of the most absurd parts of the letter is its hypocritical charges of “cronyism.” The Kochs use their money and political clout to influence elections. Charles Koch once penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed, included in the employee packet, that attacked “partisan rhetoric” and rewards for “politically connected friends.” At the time, we listed the various ways the Kochs personally profit from subsidies and government contracts and attempt to influence the political process through every means possible. Koch Industries has also played a speculative role in hiking oil prices higher for profit. And that “delay” in “important new construction projects,” mentioned in the letter refers to projects the Kochs would profit from, like the Keystone XL pipeline for shipping tar sands.

The Kochs are not the only ones attempting to influence employee votes. Two CEOs recently issued threats to employees about their jobs if Obama wins. And Murray Energy’s CEO allegedly coerced donations to Republican candidates after forcing coal miners to attend a pro-Romney rally without pay.

by Mindy Selman and Bob Diaz, via WRI Insights

This year’s extreme weather events—a warm winter, even warmer summer, and a drought that covered nearly two-thirds of the continental United States—has certainly caused its fair share of damages. But despite the crop failures, water shortages, and heat waves, extreme weather created at least one benefit: smaller dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico.

On a normal year, rain washes pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorous from farms and urban areas into the two bodies of water, fueling algae growth. When this algae dies, it consumes oxygen and creates hypoxic areas, or “dead zones,” which can kill fish and other marine life. Less rain this year meant fewer pollutants making their way into the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico. The Chesapeake Bay’s summer dead zone was the smallest since record-keeping began in 1985, and the Gulf of Mexico’s covered one of the smallest areas on record.

But It’s Not All Good News

Which isn’t to say that extreme weather and climatic events decrease the incidence of dead zones overall. In fact, in some cases, extreme weather and climatic events can actually exacerbate dead zones in lakes and oceanic ecosystems.

Dead zone occurrences have dramatically increased over the past 50 years. In 1960, there were fewer than 25 reported dead zones around the world; today there are more than 500, according to WRI’s interactive map of eutrophication and hypoxia. Dead zones in freshwater and coastal ecosystems are on the rise due to the increasing use of chemical fertilizers, manure runoff from factory farms, and sewage and wastewater discharges from urban areas. The frequency and duration of hypoxic events has been exacerbated by several other human and environmental factors, including extreme weather and climatic events. Take, for example, the following cases:

• While this year’s dead zone in the Chesapeake Bay may be one of the smallest, last July’s was the biggest on record, covering more than one-third of the bay. Scientists reported that as a result of snow melt and an unusually wet spring, the bay received as many nutrients in the month of May as it normally receives in an entire year. These nutrients fueled large algae blooms, which eventually triggered the formation of the huge dead zone.
• The Cook Islands in the South Pacific recently experienced a long-lasting dead zone in the Manihiki Lagoon, which decimated the country’s black pearl oysters. Scientists blamed this dead zone on a particularly strong La Niña event. The conditions created by the La Niña—cooler-than-average temperatures and drought—resulted in stratification of the water column. When an algae bloom occurred after a rainfall event, stratification prevented the bottom waters—which had become deoxygenated from the algae die-off—from mixing with oxygen-rich surface waters. A dead zone then formed, causing 100-percent mortality for all shellfish below 16 meters.
• Starting in 2002, Oregon’s coast began to see regular dead zone occurrences in near-shore waters. Scientists believe these occurrences are due in part to climate-driven changes in the California current system that intensified wind-driven upwelling events. Upwellings are natural events where nutrient-rich bottom waters rise to the surface, causing large algal blooms and subsequent oxygen depletion. Summer winds on the Oregon coast historically blew steady for a week or so before dying down and allowing coastal systems to flush the low-oxygen water. However, warmer temperatures attributed to climate change have intensified seasonal northwest coastal winds, which can now last between 20 to 30 days, trapping low-oxygen water near Oregon’s coast. As a result, a dead zone has formed for the past 10 summers, causing marine die-offs.
• In the spring of 2011, the largest toxic algae bloom in decades formed in Lake Erie, leading to a dead zone. In part, this massive bloom was blamed on a wet spring that brought record amounts of rainfall. The rain swept pollutants from farm fields and urban areas into the lake, providing the nutrients necessary to fuel the bloom.

Climate Change May Worsen the Situation

Read more

by Tom Wittig and Michael Conathan

When it comes to the economy of our oceans and coasts, the European Union has set an example we can’t afford to ignore.

Last Sunday, the European Commission adopted an updated version of its Integrated Marine Policy, dubbed the “Limassol Declaration.” The plan details the EU’s need for “a dynamic agenda for seas and oceans that supports… a sustainable blue economy.”

It identifies specific marine industries that can contribute to the Commission’s goals of higher employment, cleaner energy, and economic growth. Under the newly amended policy, increased attention will be given to coastal and marine tourism, offshore renewable energy, and job creation.

Throughout the declaration, the Commission also stresses its commitment to sustainability. In just six pages of text, the Commissioners included the word “sustainable” twelve times, and they clearly emphasize the value of non-extractive and restorative industries, specifying their intention to “recognize the value of marine ecosystem goods and services and the protection of the marine environment as an important element for sustainable development and prosperity.”

Despite such lofty pronouncements, the Limassol Declaration has received criticism from numerous environmental organizations, primarily because in addition to non-extractive or self-renewable industries like tourism, fisheries, or offshore wind energy, the policy also calls for development of seabed mining and aquaculture — activities that don’t sit well environmentalists. Greenpeace and several other groups issued a joint statement, saying, “treating the protection of the marine environment as a mere ‘pillar’ of the Maritime Policy will in not be enough, as healthy marine ecosystems provide the basis for maritime economic activities”

These groups are calling for a policy that includes greater regard for wildlife and habitat, and avoids promotion of extractive industries.

Last June, the Center for American Progress developed a solution to this issue and outlined a policy for the U.S. that focuses on protection as an economic force, not just extraction. In The Foundations of a Blue Economy, we detail the need to focus additional resources on the development of sustainable fisheries, ocean and coastal tourism, offshore renewable energy, and coastal restoration activities.

Our work adds to the growing body of literature extolling the promise of these non-extractive industries and provides a counterpoint to the vision offered by groups like the American Petroleum Institute, which are desperate to convince Americans that the only way to create coastal jobs is to “drill, baby, drill.”

Future reports in the Blue Economy series will take a closer look at specific ocean industries and resources that are already providing great economic value to our oceans and coasts, or have the potential to rival the economic productivity of industries like oil and gas or seabed mining.

Michael Conathan is Director of Oceans Policy at the Center for American Progress. Tom Wittig is an intern on the oceans team at the Center for American Progress.

World grain reserves are so dangerously low that severe weather in the United States or other food-exporting countries could trigger a major hunger crisis next year, the United Nations has warned. [Guardian]

Failing harvests in the US, Ukraine and other countries this year have eroded reserves to their lowest level since 1974. The US, which has experienced record heatwaves and droughts in 2012, now holds in reserve a historically low 6.5% of the maize that it expects to consume in the next year, says the UN.

“We’ve not been producing as much as we are consuming. That is why stocks are being run down. Supplies are now very tight across the world and reserves are at a very low level, leaving no room for unexpected events next year,” said Abdolreza Abbassian, a senior economist with the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). With food consumption exceeding the amount grown for six of the past 11 years, countries have run down reserves from an average of 107 days of consumption 10 years ago to under 74 days recently.

In previous elections, candidates from both parties have campaigned on pledges to be environmental presidents. This time, neither candidate is talking much about cleaning up the air or protecting scenic lands. [NPR]

Despite ongoing controversy — in the last week and a half alone environment groups have sued 14 power plants in North Carolina and four in Illinois over coal ash contamination — no one expects anything more to happen before the election. After that, it depends on the priorities of the party controlling the White House. [Washington Post]

The company at the centre of Japan’s worst-ever nuclear crisis has acknowledged for the first time it could have avoided the disaster that crippled the Fukushima Daiichi power plant last year. [Guardian]

Iowa is on pace to see the quietest tornado season in nearly 50 years, thanks to the drought. State climatologist Harry Hillaker said this summer’s extreme dry conditions have helped keep tornadoes at bay. Iowa has recorded just 16 twisters this year. [Des Moines Register]

Environmental scientists and other experts are currently grappling with the proposed geoengineering technologies and are studying the impact they could have on biodiversity. [Times of India]

Scorching weather this summer in the Midwest left crops parched and livestock famished. Restaurants, already struggling with high fuel costs and a sluggish economy, are starting to feel the pinch of higher food costs. [Los Angeles Times]

Some of Britain’s top environmental science agencies are being told to use their skills to help “de-risk” investment for UK oil companies in the polar regions. [Guardian]