Clinton: “If you’re an American, the best thing you can do is to make it politically unacceptable for people to engage in denial. I mean, it makes us — we look like a joke, right? You can’t win the nomination of one of the major parties in our country if you admit that the scientists are right? That disqualifies you from doing it? You could really help us there. It’s really tragic because we need a debate in America, and in every country, between people who are a little bit to the right and people who are a little bit to the left about what the best way is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. What is the most economical way to do it? What will get more done quicker? There are all these things that in any other country would occupy a lot of space on the ideological spectrum from right to left, and we can’t have this conversation because you’ve got to deny it?”

John Wihbey has a good collection of Clinton quotes on climate at The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media, in his piece, “How President Clinton, ‘Explainer-in-Chief,’ Frames Climate Change.”

The quote above is from last year’s Clinton Global Initiative (9-21-11). Here’s another, from a talk at the London School of Economics (7-12-12):

“My strategy on [engaging deniers] is very simple. Some people who are climate skeptics are climate skeptics because it’s in their interest to be. They just want to preserve the old energy economy, and there’s not much I can do about that. But what I am trying to do, literally all the time, is to prove that saving the planet is better economics than burning it up. Not 10 or 20 or 50 years from now — [but] now. There are a lot of climate skeptics but their reasons are being chipped away…. There are a lot of people who have a different view. Their view is, ‘Look, this may be good, this may be bad. But God almighty the world is coming apart at the seams economically and we’ve got other fish to fry. We have to deal with other things.’ [For] those people, you must prove it is good economics to change the way we produce and pursue energy…. So what I do to try to overcome the climate skeptics is to figure out how to solve the financing problems, because fundamentally all the financing problems look alike. Whether you’re dealing with clean energy or energy efficiency, the costs are all up-front and the savings are all in the back….”

No question Clinton has the arithmetic right:

• Intro to climate economics: Why even strong climate action has such a low total cost — one tenth of a penny on the dollar
• Scientists find “net present value of climate change impacts” of $1240 TRILLION on current emissions path, making mitigation to under 450 ppm a must

One final quote, also from LSE this year:

“Every now and then I’ll give a speech on this … but I try not to give many speeches on this energy stuff, the environment. I just try to do one project after another. I figure if we just keep lining ‘em up and pushing ‘em down, and lining ‘em up and pushing ‘em down, at some point denial will no longer be an effective strategy. And that’s what I recommend to you: Do something, no matter how small it is.”

Hear! Hear!

Climate change was a no-show at the second presidential debate. But the candidates did get into a heated exchange over oil policies, prompted by a question on how to lower gas prices. Mitt Romney never answered how he would help with high gas prices because his solution to expand oil and gas drilling enriches oil but does virtually nothing to lower gas prices or protect consumers from price shocks.

At the debate, Obama pointed out that Romney’s energy plan “is to let the oil companies write the energy policies.” That is literally the case; from oil billionaire Harold Hamm to oil lobbyist Jack Gerard, Romney’s energy team is dominated by oil executives and lobbyists — and his energy policy is almost identical to the American Petroleum Institute’s.

Here’s what Obama said:

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.

After a year of disparaging American clean energy industries, Romney claimed the sector “will be an important part of our energy mix.” But Romney officially opposes policies like the wind production tax credit, which helps supports 37,000 wind jobs and has led to billions in private investment in the industry. Meanwhile, Romney favors oil industry tax credits and has endorsed the Republican plan to maintain $4 billion worth each year.

Romney has opened the door to the oil industry, which has rewarded him with financial support and campaign ads.

Groups backed by the oil industry have spent heavily, according to a ThinkProgress analysis of independent advertisements from Kantar Media’s CMAG system. These groups, American Energy Alliance, American Future Fund, Americans for Prosperity, Crossroads GPS, and Let Freedom Ring, have purchased at least $11.4 million worth in ads since April attacking Obama’s energy policies. The oil industry’s lobby, American Petroleum Institute, bought over $1.3 million ads since September 1, to promote fossil fuel policies. The Kochs have also personally pledged at least $60 million on Romney’s behalf.

Days before Romney released his drilling plan in New Mexico, he raised nearly $10 million campaigning for Texas oil money. That same plan included 154 mentions of oil, but just 24 mentions of wind and solar — 9 of them negative.

by Brad Johnson

In last night’s debate, climate change was yet again ignored, while President Obama and Governor Romney touted their plans to burn more oil, gas, and coal. With only one debate left, there’s a real possibility that this will be the first series of debates since 1988 where climate change and carbon pollution is not mentioned at all.

After the debate, MSNBC contributor Chris Hayes responded with disgust to their climate silence, criticizing Obama and Romney for competing to be the candidate “who is most hastily speed our headlong flight of disaster”:

Having an energy conversation without talking about climate is like talking about smoking and not talking about cancer. You can’t talk about it unless you talk about what the stakes are for the climate. It’s unlikely we’ll see it in the third. Who is the more pro-coal candidate? Who is the more pro coal-candidate is who is going to most hastily speed our headlong flight of disaster towards a climate future in which we have not higher gas prices, higher temperatures. And the thing that’s so frustrating is the future farmers of america who will see livelihoods destroyed are not voting in the election. The people who live in inland coasts who will see their habitats destroyed are not voting in the election. the people working in coal companies now are voting in the election. I understand what their livelihood means to them. there’s an asymmetry between the people voting and the future people who aren’t. We talk about it all the time in terms of deficit be we don’t talk about it in terms of climate.

Watch it:

Read more

Modern journalism has spawned an entire fact-checking industry. Remarkably, even with the rise of dedicated fact checkers, politicians get away with lying more than ever. So what’s the best way to get people to pay attention to the lies? My personal preference is mockery. I find comedy a very effective tool for pointing out the absurdities in modern politics.

And that’s why I like the new Actually… campaign from actors and comedians like Sarah Silverman, Rosie Perez, Jay Smooth, and W. Kamau Bell (who is featured below).

In the latest installment of the Actually… video series, Bell excitedly explains why he’s so excited about Mitt Romney’s climate denial: “Hmm. Actually I think Mitt might be onto something really big here. He’s the only candidate bold enough to stand up and say what I’ve been feeling for so many years. F*ck you, science!”

Watch it below. And afterward, check out the small-but-budding list of videos here.

What if we factored the environmental and health impacts of burning coal into its cost? Economists say they would add up to about $500 billion per year — making coal’s true cost about $17.8 cents per kilowatt-hour generated.

But those costs are about more than just a number. They represent impacts on a human and environmental level that are difficult to quantify. In order to get beyond the simple economic arguments about coal, the Sierra Club has released a new photo documentary series called the “The Cost of Coal.”

They feature the stories of people like Lane and Kami Miller, a boy and his mother who live near a coal plant in Nevada.

Lane Miller demonstrates his nebulizer. Ami Vitale/Panos Pictures for Sierra Club.

Lane’s mother, Kami Miller, describers their battle with respiratory problems:

Read more

by Christy Goldfuss

In last night’s second Presidential debate, President Obama and Governor Romney had a heated exchange about energy development on public lands.  The fact checkers immediately stated that Mr. Romney’s number one statistic — that production of oil on government land is down 14 percent — was misleading.  The truth is that oil production on Federal lands is up from the previous administration.  But that is far from the full story.

Governor Romney and his lead energy advisor, oil and gas tycoon Harold Hamm, have repeatedly stated that oil and gas development on public lands has not kept pace with state and private lands.  They conveniently leave out the fact that it is not geologically possible for that to happen.  The Energy Information Agency released a map that shows the vast majority of the current oil and gas shale plays in the lower 48 states are not on public lands. As EIA administrator Adam Sieminski noted in Congressional testimony in August, “The geology is working in favor of non-federal landowners.”

This is backed up by the fact that the oil and gas industry itself has asked the government for fewer public lands on which to drill.  As the price of natural gas dropped, there was a dramatic decline in the amount of public land nominated by the industry for leasing. Since fiscal year 2006 (during the Bush administration), there has been nearly a 67 percent decline in the amount of onshore public land nominated by the industry in the Rocky Mountain States.  As one industry expert told The Wall Street Journal, “It is safe to say that there will be fewer natural gas wells drilled in 2012.” However, Governor Romney fails to recognize that the Bureau of Land Management cannot lease or permit lands that the industry does not request.

The Federal Government under President Obama has done its part to grant the oil and gas industry access to the acres with the best quality oil and gas resources. For example, the Bureau of Land Management held three of its five largest oil and gas lease sales onshore in 2011.  While Governor Romney was quick to point out that much of the boom in oil and gas production in the United States comes from Bakken Formation in North Dakota, the numbers show that under President Obama the Bureau of Land Management has leased, permitted, and drilled more on North Dakota’s public lands than under the previous administration (see graphic below).

Public lands owned by all Americans are inherently different than private lands.  In many cases, by law, the land management agencies are required to manage for multiple uses — including hunting, fishing, grazing, hiking, recreation, and not just energy production.  As a result, an “all of the above” energy strategy cannot mean an “all of the acres” strategy.

Governor Romney stated earlier this year that he did not understand the “purpose” of public lands. But since that time he has released an energy plan that defines their purpose as supporting the oil and gas industry.  The plan would give states control of energy development decisions on Public Lands, which would threaten 30 national park units including the Everglades and Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

Such a plan also threatens the 6.1 million American jobs nationwide created by the outdoor industry and ignores the very premise of public lands. As President Theodore Roosevelt said, America’s great natural resources “must be used for the benefit of all our people, not monopolized for the benefit of the few.”

Christy Goldfuss is the Director of the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Photo: Bob Berwyn

by Bob Berwyn, via Summit County Citizens Voice

Have you ever poured a can of warm coke into a glass full of ice cubes and listened to the cubes crack?

Something similar might be going on in the atmosphere, as MIT researchers have shown that direct exposure to carbon dioxide makes ice caps and glaciers more susceptible to cracking.

The study is the first to show this kind of a direct impact from increasing atmospheric CO2, which as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas is directly responsible for much of the increase in global temperatures during recent decades.

The MIT study used a series of atomistic-level computer simulations to investigate the role of CO2 molecules in ice fracturing, finding that CO2 exposure causes ice to break more easily by directly affecting the hydrogen bonds between water molecules in ice crystals — because the added CO2 competes with the water molecules in the crystals.

Ice strength is also decreased by material defects induced by CO2 bubbles, according to researchers Professor Markus Buehler and Zhao Qin.

“If ice caps and glaciers were to continue to crack and break into pieces, their surface area that is exposed to air would be significantly increased, which could lead to accelerated melting and much reduced coverage area on the Earth,” said Buehler. “The consequences of these changes remain to be explored by the experts, but they might contribute to changes of the global climate,” he added.

Ice caps and glaciers cover seven per cent of the Earth—more than Europe and North America combined—and are responsible for reflecting 80 percent of the Sun’s light rays that enter our atmosphere and maintain the Earth’s temperature. They are also a natural carbon sink, capturing a large amount of CO2.

The study showed that CO2 molecules first adhere to the crack boundary of ice by forming a bond with the hydrogen atoms and then migrate through the ice in a flipping motion along the crack boundary towards the crack tip, where they accumulate and attack the water molecules by trying to bond to them. This leaves broken bonds behind and increases the brittleness of the ice on a macroscopic scale.

The research was published Oct, 11 in the Institute of Physics Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics.

Bob Berwyn is editor of Summit County Citizens Voice. This piece was originally published at Summit Voice and was reprinted with permission.

Scientists studying Earth system processes, including climate change, are now working with one of the largest supercomputers on the planet. The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has begun using a 1.5 petaflop IBM system, called Yellowstone, that is among the top 20 supercomputers in the world, at least until the global rankings are updated next month. [Computerworld]

They say that to tell who won a debate, watch it with the sound off. What I learned after the last debate, however, is that to tell what was actually said at a debate, you don’t want to watch it at all. You want to read it. [Wonk Blog]

President Obama and Mitt Romney threw plenty of jabs about energy at their second debate Tuesday but said nothing about climate change. [The Hill]

Warming could be a winning issue, but President Obama isn’t pushing on it — and experts finger one of his top aides as the culprit. [Atlantic]

We heard some oldies but goodies in Tuesday night’s feisty debate between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney. Here are some factual highlights–or lowlights. [Washington Post]

On Monday, a paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, or PNAS, concluded that large Katrina-sized hurricanes were twice as likely to form off the United States’ southeast coast in hotter years than they were in colder years. [Los Angeles Times]

A ribbon cutting ceremony on Monday (October 15) marked the official opening of the NOAA’s new world-class center dedicated to advancing the state of weather and climate science and transitioning research findings to improved weather forecasts and related information. [Weather Gang]

A major review into the impact of climate change on plants and animals has found that scientists have almost no idea how it drives various species to extinction. [Guardian]

Data from Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute provide a detailed picture for the first 40 weeks of the year, from January 1 to October 7, and indicates the scale of grid balancing already needed. [Reuters]

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday defended her government’s decision to phase out nuclear power and switch to renewable energies within a decade, but acknowledged the need to overhaul and speed up the transition plan. [Associated Press]

Overcapacity in the solar industry is likely to result in at least 180 panel makers either going bust or being acquired by 2015, according to a research report released on Tuesday. [Reuters]

The Middle East and North Africa, home to about half the world’s oil reserves, has more than 150 renewable-energy projects under way, a map from the Abu Dhabi- based Clean Energy Business Council shows. [Bloomberg]