“The door is closing. I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for climate safety]. The door will be closed forever.”

No, that was not President Barack Obama or his Republican Challenger Mitt Romney speaking in the presidential debate. It was Fatih Birol, the renowned chief economist of the International Energy Agency, speaking about the pressing need to transition away from fossil fuels.

You’d be hard pressed to hear either of the presidential candidates make a statement like that. Or any statement on climate at all.

Those concerned about climate change were sorely disappointed during Tuesday night’s town hall-style debate when both the candidates and the moderator — CNN’s Candy Crowley — failed to address the issue of climate change, even during a lengthy and heated exchange about energy issues.

“I had that question for all of you climate change people,” said Crowley in the post-debate coverage. “We just, you know, again, we knew that the economy was still the main thing so you knew you kind of wanted to go with the economy.”

Obama started off the debate with a strong nod to renewable energy, explaining that we need to invest in “solar and wind and biofuels, energy efficient cars.” But after a voter asked about gas prices, both Obama and Romney proceeded to battle over who could drill more fossil fuels. (At one point, the two men closed in on each other, pointed fingers, and raised their voices over how much oil production had increased).

Obama separated himself by focusing on the need to develop more renewables and lower consumption of petroleum through better efficiency measures. But when talking about why he believes those investments are important, he never mentioned the reasons that alternatives to fossil fuels are so important.

Perhaps Australian climate scientist Will Steffen can explain: “This is the critical decade. If we don’t get the curves turned around this decade we will cross those lines. We are on the cusp of some big changes. We can … cap temperature rise at two degrees, or cross the threshold beyond which the system shifts to a much hotter state.”

Below is the full discussion on energy issues. Can you find the mention of climate? (Don’t strain too hard. We’ve already ruined it for you — there are none).

QUESTION: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it’s not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?

OBAMA: The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy. So here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years.

Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment. But what I’ve also said is we can’t just produce traditional source of energy. We’ve also got to look to the future. That’s why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. That means that in the middle of the next decade, any car you buy, you’re going to end up going twice as far on a gallon of gas. That’s why we doubled clean – clean energy production like wind and solar and biofuels.

And all these things have contributed to us lowering our oil imports to the lowest levels in 16 years. Now, I want to build on that. And that means, yes, we still continue to open up new areas for drilling. We continue to make it a priority for us to go after natural gas. We’ve got potentially 600,000 jobs and 100 years worth of energy right beneath our feet with natural gas.

And we can do it in an environmentally sound way. But we’ve also got to continue to figure out how we have efficiency energy, because ultimately that’s how we’re going to reduce demand and that’s what’s going to keep gas prices lower.

Now, Governor Romney will say he’s got an all-of-the-above plan, but basically his plan is to let the oil companies write the energy policies. So he’s got the oil and gas part, but he doesn’t have the clean energy part. And if we are only thinking about tomorrow or the next day and not thinking about 10 years from now, we’re not going to control our own economic future. Because China, Germany, they’re making these investments. And I’m not going to cede those jobs of the future to those countries. I expect those new energy sources to be built right here in the United States.

That’s going to help Jeremy get a job. It’s also going to make sure that you’re not paying as much for gas.

CROWLEY: Governor, on the subject of gas prices?

ROMNEY: Well, let’s look at the president’s policies, all right, as opposed to the rhetoric, because we’ve had four years of policies being played out. And the president’s right in terms of the additional oil production, but none of it came on federal land. As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands, and in federal waters.

So where’d the increase come from? Well a lot of it came from the Bakken Range in North Dakota. What was his participation there? The administration brought a criminal action against the people drilling up there for oil, this massive new resource we have. And what was the cost? 20 or 25 birds were killed and brought out a migratory bird act to go after them on a criminal basis.

Look, I want to make sure we use our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, our renewables. I believe very much in our renewable capabilities; ethanol, wind, solar will be an important part of our energy mix.

But what we don’t need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil, or Mr. Gas, or Mr. Coal. Talk to the people that are working in those industries. I was in coal country. People grabbed my arms and said, “Please save my job.” The head of the EPA said, “You can’t build a coal plant. You’ll virtually – it’s virtually impossible given our regulations.” When the president ran for office, he said if you build a coal plant, you can go ahead, but you’ll go bankrupt. That’s not the right course for America.

Let’s take advantage of the energy resources we have, as well as the energy sources for the future. And if we do that, if we do what I’m planning on doing, which is getting us energy independent, North America energy independence within eight years, you’re going to see manufacturing jobs come back. Because our energy is low cost, that are already beginning to come back because of our abundant energy. I’ll get America and North America energy independent. I’ll do it by more drilling, more permits and licenses.

We’re going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline? I will never know.

This is about bringing good jobs back for the middle class of America, and that’s what I’m going to do.

CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me just see if I can move you to the gist of this question, which is, are we looking at the new normal? I can tell you that tomorrow morning, a lot of people in Hempstead will wake up and fill up and they will find that the price of gas is over $4 a gallon.

Is it within the purview of the government to bring those prices down, or are we looking at the new normal?

OBAMA: Candy, there’s no doubt that world demand’s gone up, but our production is going up, and we’re using oil more efficiently. And very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We’ve opened up public lands. We’re actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration and my – the previous president was an oil man.

And natural gas isn’t just appearing magically. We’re encouraging it and working with the industry.

Read more

Climate change and clean energy are twin wedge issues. They both divide Tea Party extremists from Democrats, independents, and even moderate/liberal Rebuplicans.

As one of the leading experts on public opinion analysis in this area, Stanford’s Jon Krosnick, said earlier this month, candidates “may actually enhance turnout as well as attract voters over to their side by discussing climate change.”

Countless polls have made this clear (see links below), though obviously President Obama and the White House communications office didn’t get the memo: See “Polling Expert: Is Obama’s Reluctance to Mention Climate Change Motivated by a False Assumption About Public Opinion?” So I’m doubtful climate will be a topic of much debate tonight. It looks like we’ll have to wait at least until the next presidential election to get a candidate who runs on this winning wedge issue.

The latest poll is from Pew, which shows the U.S. public’s understanding of climate change is on the rebound:

Currently, 67% say there is solid evidence that the earth’s average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades, up four points since last year and 10 points since 2009….

A majority of Democrats (56%) say that global warming is a very serious problem. By contrast, just 19% of Republicans think it is a very serious problem while the majority (55%) says it is not too serious or not a problem at all. Among independents, 39% say that global warming is a very serious problem.

Another 26% of independents say it is a “somewhat serious problem” — so nearly 2 out of 3 independents so it is a very or somewhat serious problem. Again, that’s why climate change is a wedge issue.

Chris Mooney interviewed me on this subject for a widely disseminated article. Gotta love The Atlantic‘s headline on this:

Note to self: I told you so.

That article led to an interview with Current TV’s Michael Shure (video here), where I said, among other things:

“It would be great if a member of the media actually asked even one question on what most of us think is the story of the century, which is that we are in the process of ruining this livable climate of ours. And we can still solve the problem if we act now, but obviously if no one talks about it, it’s very hard to solve the problem”

Finally, The Climate Desk sponsored a panel on this subject that I participated in with Paul Bledsoe and Betsy Taylor, author of the must-read Guide For Engaging and Winning on Climate And Clean Energy. Chris Mooney was host and moderator. Here’s his story on the panel and the full video:

Read more

by Katie Valentine

A severe drop in the world’s grain supply due to this summer’s extreme weather events has driven up food prices and could lead to a major hunger crisis in 2013, UN officials say.

Widespread drought and record-breaking heat waves across the U.S. caused mass soybean and corn crop failures this summer, leading to the worst harvest in more than 50 years.  Similar weather is expected to cut grain harvests in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan – which together supply a quarter of world’s wheat exports – by 27 percent. These production shortages have led to the U.S. consuming more grain than it produces, running grain stocks down to historically low levels.

And the U.S. isn’t alone: worldwide food consumption has surpassed production for the sixth time in 11 years, and countries have reduced reserves from an average 107 days of consumption 10 years ago to less than 74 days in recent years. This drop in food reserves leaves “no room for unexpected events next year,” Abdolreza Abbassian, a senior economist with the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, told the Guardian.

The low crop yields have caused a spike in food prices around the world, with the UN FAO reporting a Food Price Index rise of 1.4 percent in September, following an increase of 6 percent in July. This price increase hurts the world’s poorest countries, where as much as 60 to 80 percent of household budgets are spent on food. Families in these countries eat less often, buy cheaper, less nutritious and less varied food, and must make cuts in other areas in order to feed themselves. Rising food prices are expected to increase the grain import bill for poor countries to $36.5 billion in 2012-2013 – a 3.7 percent jump from last year’s bill.

Increased food prices could also lead to increased instability around the world. One study concluded that riots become more likely when Food Price Index levels surpass 210 points. Currently at 216 points, Food Price Index levels are 22 points away from those that some say helped spark the riots leading to the Arab Spring. They’ve certainly contributed to instability in the past: food price spikes in 2007 and 2008 sparked food riots in countries across the world, which led to the death of five people and the collapse of the government in Haiti.

In the U.S., consumers don’t often take to the streets to protest the rise in food prices, in part because food makes up so little of our household budgets – in 2011, U.S. consumers spent on average about 7 percent of their income on food, compared to 43 percent in Indonesia. Still, food prices aren’t going unnoticed in America. The price of corn increased 60 percent during the summer, causing some restaurants to cut corn from their menus and serve grain-intensive beef less often. The price of chicken, turkey and eggs is up from last year, and menu prices at Olive Garden, McDonalds, Buffalo Wild Wings have increased in response to higher food prices. And farmers are adjusting too: chicken suppliers are growing larger birds so they have fewer mouths to feed, and this fall, farmers are feeding  their cows candy as a cheaper alternative to corn.

During the October 16 Committee on World Food Security 39^th session in Rome, the UN focused talks on what can be done to combat the rising price of food. Officials noted that the number of people suffering from hunger has stopped going down over the past several years, and is actually increasing in Africa and the Middle East. During the committee session, which runs from October 15 – 20, the UN is stressing the importance of agricultural cooperatives as key players in ending poverty and hunger.

Katie Valentine is a graduate from the University of Georgia. She currently interns on the international policy team at the Center for American Progress.

UpStart [uhp-stahrt] n. 1. A company or organization with innovative approaches to energy use, carbon pollution, resource consumption, and/or social equity, 2. A company or organization overcoming market barriers to build the new clean energy economy.

by Adam James

This column has focused largely on market barriers and consumer engagement with clean energy, but less on the supply chain portion of  companies’ business models. Along with supplying end-products, the clean energy economy will be populated by many companies who are purely in the business of supplying the materials used in clean technologies. It is important for U.S. competitiveness and industry to ensure that these new companies are fostered right here at home.

A Common Thread: Rare Earth Metals

Rare earth metals are naturally occurring minerals whose properties make them uniquely suited to certain clean technologies, particularly electric vehicles and wind turbines. The components in these clean technologies — including magnets, superconducting wire, batteries, and motors — are made possible through the unique properties these rare earth metals provide.

So what’s the issue? It isn’t that rare earth metals are rare. In fact, they are quite plentiful. The problem is that they are mainly plentiful in China. This puts the America at a competitive disadvantage, subjecting U.S. manufacturing to the kinds of prices that a 95 percent Chinese stake in the market allows.

Even if dominance of the rare earth metal market is temporary, as some have argued, more control over the clean technology supply chain will help tap into two of America’s strongest assets. The first is a manufacturing workforce that is still bouncing back from economic downturn. The second is unlocking the entrepreneurs who are looking to start innovative companies — if they can get costs down far enough to compete.

The United States recognized this problem, and issued $30 million in grants through the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) and the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop alternatives to rare earth materials. Not all these projects will succeed, but the ones which do will go a long way toward crafting the necessary inputs for a clean energy economy.

Motors and Wires

Read more

by Casey J. Bell

The impact of investments in energy efficiency extends well beyond reducing energy costs or addressing the environmental impacts of energy extraction and use. These investments provide jobs for American workers and help them to support their families and communities.

ACEEE has just released a series of six profiles of real world experiences in energy efficiency job creation. These profiles describe programs, policies, investments, partnerships, and business models that have catalyzed regional increases in employment. While previous ACEEE work has provided an analytic framework for how jobs are created through efficiency, this paper focuses on the jobs themselves.

Energy efficiency catalyzes employment opportunities that draw upon the broad range of Americans’ skills. Moreover, as companies’ investments in energy efficiency improve their bottom lines, they experience increased competitiveness, which is a potential contributing factor in bringing jobs back to American soil. Each profile serves as an independent portrait of the various driving forces behind energy efficiency job creation, illustrates the diversity of energy efficiency jobs, and demonstrates the extent to which they draw upon Americans’ existing skills and competencies.

Highlights in the paper distilled from conversations with program representatives and literature review include:

Read more

This morning brought a piece of news that some in the press will label an “October surprise” for the Obama campaign.

A123 Systems, a manufacturer of lithium ion batteries used for electric vehicles and grid storage, has filed for bankruptcy protection and reached an agreement to sell two U.S. manufacturing plants to competitor Johnson Controls. The company received $129 million in grants to build its facilities.

Let the political messaging begin.

Journalists will likely paint this another “blow to the White House” over its support for clean energy. The pundits at Fox News are probably busy rehearsing their “crony capitalism” lines with zombie-like discipline. And Mitt Romney is doubtless penciling in a new zinger on “picking winners and losers” for tonight’s presidential debate.

Actually, it’s a good opportunity for Obama to stand up and defend federal investments in clean energy.

Today’s announcement, while certainly unfortunate for a once-promising American cleantech company, is neither a huge surprise, nor the loss of a taxpayer investment.

In fact, the only taxpayer funds provided to A123 Systems were for domestic manufacturing facilities — plants that have now been purchased by Johnson Controls, a leading company in the advanced automobile sector (Already, journalists are reporting that A123 Systems received $249 million in grants. Actually, the company only took down $129 million in grants for building its manufacturing facilities).

“Our interest in A123 Systems is consistent with our long-term growth strategies and overall commitment to the development of the advanced battery industry,” said Alex Molinaroli, president of Johnson Controls’ power solutions arm, in a statement.

So an American company purchases manufacturing facilities and other assets from another American company — keeping that advanced battery production in the U.S. — and explains that it’s “consistent with our long-term growth strategies.”

That’s quite an interesting story. But it doesn’t exactly make good election-year messaging.

Facts be damned, opponents are lining up to use A123 Systems as a weapon for attacking President Obama and Democrats for their support of clean energy.

“Obama/Stabenow choose badly with $ borrowed from China. A123 goes bankrupt and our kids are left holding the bag,” tweeted former Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) this morning.

What Hoekstra doesn’t mention is that he co-signed a letter in 2009 requesting funds for a Michigan-based manufacturing facility proposed by A123 Systems. He, like virtually every other lawmaker across the political spectrum, explained that such investments are “vital home-grown technologies and job creation in a new industry essential to jump start the development of a U.S. manufacturing base.”

Hoekstra is one of dozens of Republican lawmakers — including Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan — who asked for hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and loan guarantees for clean energy projects in their districts. But that was before it became a political strategy to exploit the failure of innovative companies in order to win an election.

The A123 issue could well come up in the presidential debate tonight between Obama and Romney.

In the last debate, Romney tried to claim that “nearly half” of clean energy companies supported by the stimulus package had gone bankrupt. That absurd claim was quickly debunked and the Romney campaign had to walk it back the next day, saying he was talking only about the loan guarantee program. In fact, out of the dozens of companies that received loan guarantees, only three have gone bankrupt.

Even if the attacks have already gotten absurdly out of proportion, this is still a legitimate story. In 2008, Obama made renewable energy a major part of his campaign. In 2009, he made it a major part of the stimulus package. So when a company fails after getting support from the Administration, it’s bound to be brought up.

But Obama should be able to defend his record. And sadly, he failed to do that in the last debate.

A123 Systems is one of 29 companies that have received funding in order to build dozens of manufacturing facilities throughout the U.S. for batteries, new types of engines, and a variety of other components to advanced vehicles.

In addition, since Obama came into office, we’ve seen

• a doubling of non-hydro renewable electricity
• tens of thousands of jobs supported in the sector
• some of the biggest “first-of-a-kind” wind, solar, and biofuels facilities built
• new efficiency standards for the automotive sector that will continue to spur new innovations in technology.

And let’s not forget: Romney was once an avid supporter of advanced vehicle manufacturing who called for “a joint public-private partnership to invest in new technology related to fuel efficiency as well as new sources of energy.”

Polls show the American people still want to see strong federal investments in clean energy technologies. When this issue inevitably comes up tonight, Obama should be able to look confidently at the American people and explain the why he believes they are economically and environmentally important — as well as put the record straight on the accomplishments we’ve made.

This excerpt from a 2011 post is relevant again today as advanced battery maker A-123 Systems files for bankruptcy protection. We will have a post on that shortly. You can read the Department of Energy response here.

The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2001 that a handful of clean energy technologies returned about $30 billion on an R&D investment of about $400 million. The United States is an amazing venture capitalist when it comes to clean energy R&D.

But the all-Solyndra, all-the-time stenographers of the status quo at the Washington Post put out this context-free nonsense:

That article demonstrates the Post doesn’t understand the first thing about venture capital nor have they done even the minimal amount of homework on the myriad major independent studies of the value of clean energy research.

You’d never even know from the article that most private sector VC investments go bankrupt or have no significant positive return. It is a risky business that investors put money into for the few really big wins. You’d never know that VC investments are judged by their portfolio return — and by that criteria you would have to say that federal clean energy investments are wildly successful, as I’ll discuss in this post.

The Post makes the briefest passing mention to a key point:

Many policy experts say some of government’s biggest energy investment payoffs have come in the small stuff, such as testing the use of magnesium alloys to make lightweight car batteries more efficient or developing ballasts that make compact fluorescent bulbs more efficient.

Actually, it isn’t just “many policy experts” who say this, it is the National Academy of Sciences, among others. And their findings invalidate the Post’s entire analysis and most critiques of the  will clean energy investment failure. Here’s the back story.

I was at the US Department of Energy when the Gingrich gang took over and tried to shut down all of DOE’s applied energy research, claiming it was a waste of the taxpayers money. I helped organize a major report documenting the large return to the US taxpayers of federal spending on energy efficiency (and other energy technologies). The once-honorable GAO (formerly General Accounting Office, hypocritically renamed Government Accountability Office) didn’t want to meet the same fate as the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, so parts of it became a wing of the Gingrich hit squad.

The GAO tried and failed to debunk the report, but the end result was a request to the National Academy of Sciences to independently verify the stated benefits of DOE energy research. The ensuing report Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000 was a stunning vindication:

… the report examines 17 R&D programs in energy efficiency and 22 programs in fossil energy funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). These programs yielded economic returns of an estimated $40 billion from an investment of $13 billion.

Three energy-efficiency programs, costing approximately $11 million, produced nearly three-quarters of this benefit. Most significant were advances made in compressors for refrigerators and freezers, energy-efficient fluorescent-lighting components called electronic ballasts, and low-emission, or heat-resistant, window glass. Standards and regulations incorporating efficiencies attainable by these new technologies ensured that the technologies would be adopted nationwide, thus dramatically compounding their impact.

Let me expand on that last point: The handful of energy technologies cited above, developed through funding by my old office, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, have returned some $30 billion on an R&D investment of about $400 million. I defy anybody to identify an independent report from a body as credible as the National Academy showing such a staggering return on investment for US taxpayer dollars.

Of course, you can’t know a priori which investments will pay off and which won’t, so you need to invest in many technologies, just to have a few winners. The GAO actually argued in a Congressional hearing where I was a DOE witness that if the DOE invested in 10 technologies for $10 million, and nine of the technologies failed, but one of the technologies saved taxpayers $100 million, that the entire effort was a waste of money. Such was the logic of the Gingrich Congress. Such apparently is the logic of the Washington Post.

I would add that the above numbers do not even count the environmental benefit of reducing pollution, although the report notes that, on the whole, the energy technologies in the report avoided “more than $60 billion in damage and mitigation.” And even that estimate does not include any benefit from carbon reductions.

Read more

by Kate Gordon

It may be hard for many Californians — hell, it’s hard for many in my office — to follow the ins and outs of AB32, the state’s landmark Global Warming Solutions act, which requires a reduction of our carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. But here’s one thing we all do know: gas prices in California went up this week. Gas stations near my house in the East Bay are posting prices around $5 per gallon, and it’s a price spike found throughout the state, as this L.A. Times editorial makes clear.

I found this comment in the L.A. Times story particularly illuminating: “The recent pain at the pump can be explained away as the result of an August fire that closed a big Chevron refinery in Richmond, a pipeline disruption and a power outage that temporarily shut down an Exxon Mobil refinery in Torrance.”

This is what we’ve come to expect: total reliance on a fossil fuel that’s inherently volatile and risky to extract, move, and combust; one that has a price constantly going up or down based on man-made or natural disasters, not to mention global political threats.

You’d think California businesses would be chomping at the bit for a way to move toward a more diversified, less volatile energy path, like the one envisioned by the three key pieces of AB32: cap and trade, a far-reaching Renewable Portfolio Standard, and a Low Carbon Fuel Standard. But in fact, as we inch closer to the inaugural AB32 cap and trade auction in November, some businesses have continued attempts to block this key part of California’s climate change legislation.

Thankfully, many other business groups throughout the state are outspoken AB32 enthusiasts. This week, Ruben Guerra of the Latin Business Association and Susan Frank of the California Business Alliance for a Green Economy proclaimed their support for the state’s pioneering climate and clean energy law. These key business leaders remind us that AB32 will provide immense economic benefits for our economy – not just because it will diversify the energy sources on which California businesses depend, but also because it will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the state.

Just last year, California’s climate change legislation attracted $3.5 billion in private investment and created thousands of jobs. In a report released Tuesday, “Counting up to Green,” the Economic Policy Institute reports that green industries create jobs faster than the overall economy. Furthermore, the report indicates that green jobs offer significant opportunities for workers without a four-year college degree. That’s over 60 percent of our workforce, and it’s a set of workers particularly hard hit by the current recession.

Research we’ve done at the Center for the Next Generation breaks this down for California, showing just how strong the green economy has grown in our state and how much potential there is in every county for still more jobs. By itself the wind sector now employs close to 5,000 workers across California.

AB32 should be a no-brainer for California businesses, so long as it’s done right. Implementing the law is a challenge we all face moving forward, but it’s one that smart state businesses should be engaged in, not fighting against.

Kate Gordon is Director of Advanced Energy and Sustainability at the Center for the Next Generation.

by Miles Grant, via National Wildlife Federation

On Sunday’s edition of Meet the Press, former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw listed climate change among the topics that neither the first presidential debate nor the vice presidential debate delved into.

There has been no discussion of global warming,” said Brokaw. “I think the American public, as I talk to them, want detailed answers and they want candor and they say, hey, look, don’t try to smoke me this time.

Unfortunately, moderator David Gregory immediately steered the panel discussion back to the format of the next debate – a topic of great interest to Washington insiders, but not exactly a critical issue on Main Street.

So far, the debates have ducked conservation. That’s even though poll after poll shows deep concern about climate change:

• Two-thirds (67%) of Americans, including 65% of independents, see solid evidence of global warming, up 10% in the last 3 years. That’s according to a new Pew Research Center poll.
• Government action to regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming is supported by 74% of Americans, according to an August poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
• Among sportsmen, a conservative-leaning group, two in three (66%) believe we have a moral responsibility to confront global warming to protect our children’s future. Additionally, 69% agree the U.S. should reduce its carbon emissions that contribute to global warming and threaten fish and wildlife habitat.

Tonight’s town hall debate may open up new topics, thanks in part to the over 3,000 questions submitted by Google users. However, the early agenda for the final debate doesn’t look good for talk of global climate change. Moderator Bob Schieffer is defining “foreign policy” to focus heavily on terrorism and the Middle East. His released list of topics doesn’t even mention energy policy or climate change, even though the Pentagon calls global warming a national security threat.

If President Obama and Mitt Romney think climate change is worth debating, they don’t have to sit back and wait to be asked. Take action right now and urge President Obama and Governor Romney to tell us their plans to confront climate change.

Miles Grant is the National Wildlife Federation’s online communications manager, working to connect the policy and politics up on Capitol Hill to the changes global warming is bringing to your backyard. This piece was originally published at NWF’s Wildlife Promise blog and was reprinted with permission.

A controversial American businessman dumped around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the Pacific Ocean as part of a geoengineering scheme off the west coast of Canada in July, a Guardian investigation can reveal. [Guardian]

Satellite images appear to confirm the claim by Californian Russ George that the iron has spawned an artificial plankton bloom as large as 10,000 square kilometres. The intention is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the ocean bed – a geoengineering technique known as ocean fertilisation that he hopes will net lucrative carbon credits.

“It is difficult if not impossible to detect and describe important effects that we know might occur months or years later,” said John Cullen , an oceanographer at Dalhousie University. “Some possible effects, such as deep-water oxygen depletion and alteration of distant food webs, should rule out ocean manipulation. History is full of examples of ecological manipulations that backfired.”

Shifts in crop production reflect a view among food producers that this summer’s drought in the U.S. — the worst in half a century — isn’t a random disaster. It’s a glimpse of a future altered by climate change that will affect worldwide production. [Businessweek]

On NBC’s Meet the Press, on Sunday, Tom Brokaw noted that the debates, and the coverage of the whole campaign, is ignoring several pressing questions facing the country, including the threat of climate change. [Examiner]

Two environmental groups intensified their efforts in several House and Senate campaigns Monday , with one of them entering the Arizona Senate race for the first time in hopes of generating momentum for rising Democratic candidate Richard Carmona. [The Hill]

Keystone XL pipeline foes have tried petitioning the government, grabbing media attention and filing lawsuits. Now, with the southern leg of the pipeline under construction, they’re turning to civil disobedience — and actress Daryl Hannah. [Washington Post]

Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens has sold his stake in a controversial wind farm proposed in Goodhue County, Minn., but its new owner says the project is going ahead. [Star Tribune]

Iraq plans to spend up to $1.6 billion on solar and wind power stations over the next three years to add 400 megawatts to the national grid to help curb daily blackouts, an official from the ministry of electricity said on Monday. [Reuters]

Introducing a financial incentive for energy efficiency could help the UK deliver electricity demand reductions at far lower cost than building new low carbon generation capacity, green campaigners have said. [Business Green]