New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg says that climate change is his top consideration this election season. In a piece headlined, “A Vote for a President Who Will Lead on Climate Change,” the Mayor explains:

Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be – given this week’s devastation – should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.

But we can’t do it alone. We need leadership from the White House – and over the past four years, President Barack Obama has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption, including setting higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. His administration also has adopted tighter controls on mercury emissions, which will help to close the dirtiest coal power plants (an effort I have supported through my philanthropy), which are estimated to kill 13,000 Americans a year.

As Bloomberg helps his city recover from Superstorm Sandy — one of nearly two dozen extreme weather events costing more than $1 billion since last year — he says that such extreme events should concern us all:

The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast – in lost lives, lost homes and lost business – brought the stakes of Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief.

The floods and fires that swept through our city left a path of destruction that will require years of recovery and rebuilding work. And in the short term, our subway system remains partially shut down, and many city residents and businesses still have no power. In just 14 months, two hurricanes have forced us to evacuate neighborhoods – something our city government had never done before. If this is a trend, it is simply not sustainable.

Our climate is changing….

It is a trend, a dangerous one.

Bloomberg says climate change has influenced his decision to vote for Barack Obama:

When I step into the voting booth, I think about the world I want to leave my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there. The two parties’ nominees for president offer different visions of where they want to lead America….

One sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.

After a period of silence among political leaders and journalists this campaign season on climate change, the issue has dominated headlines in the days after Hurricane Sandy.

by Kert Davies

As news organizations cover the relationship between climate and extreme weather in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, we also need to consider the people attempting to misinform and distort the link. One name comes to mind: Andrea Saul.

Saul happens to be Mitt Romney’s campaign press secretary.

A Greenpeace investigation on Andrea Saul began this year when a sharp ex-journalist tipped us on anti-climate science press releases sent his way while Saul worked for the lobbyists DCI Group several years ago.  Upon further digging, it was clear that Saul played a key role in an Exxon-funded campaign to subvert global warming science — running counter-ops specifically denying any connection between global warming and hurricanes in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Saul worked with a DCI Tech Central Station team that created fake TV newcasts that “reported” no connection between hurricanes and climate change.  These tapes were distributed to Gulf state TV stations. The Saul tape and a Mississippi newscast that aired the piece were preserved by the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Watch it:

Read more

There’s been a noticeable shift in the way that prominent figures talk about how to deal with climate change. Many advocates have shifted from a more accommodating “let’s all join together and develop clean energy” message to directly targeting the fossil fuel industry as a villain. This effort, embodied in 350.org’s “Do the Math” tour, has become a central piece of messaging in the environmental community.

In the research community, scientists are increasingly stepping beyond their conservative comfort zones and making bolder statements about observed and projected changes to the climate — even saying we have a moral obligation to do something. Some, like NASA’s James Hansen, are straddling both of these messaging platforms. To the delight of both climate messengers and climate skeptics, Hansen is undoubtedly the most outspoken climate scientist today. He has been for almost 25 years.

In his speeches and media appearances, Hansen displays a unique sense of moral outrage that many scientists avoid and sometimes chastise. (For more on Hansen’s moral/scientific approach to talking about climate change, watch his outstanding TED Talk from this March called, “Why I must speak out on climate change”).

But Hansen doesn’t just talk in broad brush strokes about the need to transition away from fossil fuels. He’s been very upfront about taking the fossil fuel industry head-on, loosen its grip on politics, and make it pay for environmental damage. He’s also not afraid to call out both parties for bending over backward to accommodate the fossil fuel industry during an election year.

“The politicians are not willing to say that we cannot burn all the fossil fuels without guaranteeing a different planet,” said Hansen in an interview with Ceyk Uygur on The Young Turks last night. “Neither party wants to offend the fossil fuel industry” by explaining the hard choices we have to make, he explained.

Watch it:

HANSEN: Neither party wants to offend the fossil fuel industry. They want to win the election. And they know the power of the fossil fuel industry. You can’t turn on your television without seeing these advertisements about clean coal, tar sands, and the claim that there’s more jobs associated with fossil fuels than with other energies. That’s of course not true, but they’re hammering that into the voters heads. And so if anyone challenges the fossil fuel industry, they know they’re going to lose the money that they get from the fossil fuel industry. And secondly, they’re going to have the fossil fuel industry against them in the election.

UYGUR: So it seems to me based upon what you’re saying is that we can’t solve the climate change problem until we solve the money in politics problem. Because this money has flooded politics, if you will, to the degree that they’ve effectively shut down our politicians who should be fixing this.

HANSEN: Yeah, campaign finance reform has been lost as a topic. However, the real problem is that fossil fuels are still the cheapest energy because we subsidize them. The taxpayer subsidizes them. We do not make fossil fuels pay for their cost to society — air pollution and water pollution from fossil fuels…And these climate effects — $20 billion effect from this storm. Who’s gonna pay for that? You are, the taxpayer. Not the fossil fuel industry. So what we have to do is collect a fee from the fossil fuel company at the domestic mine or the port of entry and distribute that money to the public. So the fee will then increase the price of fossil fuels, but the people will then have the money to make the decisions of what energy sources they’re going to use. And gradually we will move away from fossil fuels as this fee rises toward clean energies. And that’s what we’re going to have to do. The politicians are not willing to say that we cannot burn all the fossil fuels without guaranteeing a different planet — and cheating our planet.

Hansen is still unique in his willingness to call out politicians and fossil fuel companies for stalling action or covering up the issue. As the problem gets worse, it’s likely we’ll see others join his side.

by Daniel J. Weiss and Jackie Weidman

Our thoughts and prayers are with the millions of Americans harmed by Hurricane Sandy. Its devastating winds, rains, and ocean surges caused a huge swath of destruction in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States before dumping vast quantities of snow in the Midwest. Sandy is responsible for at least 74 fatalities, and preliminary estimates indicate that it could cause $20 billion in property damage with only one-quarter to one-half covered by insurance. It may be one of the costliest U.S. hurricanes ever.

Unfortunately, Sandy is only the latest in a line of recent extreme weather events that have severely afflicted Americans in the past two years. Other disasters include the most destructive wildfire in Colorado history, record-breaking temperatures across the nation, and severe thunderstorms and tornadoes across the Midwest. Farmers in the Midwest are expecting to harvest just a fraction of their corn and other crops this year, leading to record federal crop insurance payments due to the worst drought in 50 years that plagued two-thirds of the nation. Vicious heat waves, wildfires, hurricanes, and severe storms left hundreds of people dead and injured. These are the extreme weather events that scientists predict will become more frequent and/or severe if the industrial carbon pollution responsible for climate change remains unchecked.

Scientists and government agencies have documented the devastating extreme weather events in 2011 and 2012. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that there were a record-high 14 weather events in 2011 that caused at least $1 billion each in damages. By our estimates there were at least seven additional events with more than $1 billion each in damages in 2012, with total combined damages from the two years topping $67 billion. In addition to these events, economists predict that the 2012 drought will cause between $28 billion and $77 billion in damages, potentially bringing the two-year damage total to $95 billion to $144 billion. During this time, all but five of the lower 48 states were affected by one or more of these events. (see table below)

Munich Re, the world’s biggest reinsurance firm, found that North America is experiencing a tremendous rise in extreme weather disasters—a nearly fivefold increase over the past three decades. It reported that, “There has been a 35 percent increase in the size of storms in the Gulf of Mexico since 1995.” It also concluded that this is due to climate change, and that this trend will continue in the future.

Climate science deniers are eager to claim that no single weather occurrence is definitely caused by climate change. Though that is technically correct, is is very misleading because scientists found that climate change does indeed affect our weather in clearly debilitating ways. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research notes that, “All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.”

Read more

by Rebecca Leber and Jackie Weidman

ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell, No. 1 and No. 2 on the Fortune 500 Global companies list, announced their third-quarter earnings on Thursday. Compared to last year’s earnings, both companies’ profits are down slightly — 7 percent for Exxon and 15 percent for Shell — on weaker oil prices. However, ExxonMobil and Shell earned $9.6 billion and $6.1 billion respectively, bringing their total 2012 profits to $35 billion for Exxon and $18.9 billion for Shell.

These two companies, along with the rest of the Big Five, continue to receive century-old annual tax breaks. At the same time, Exxon and Shell funnel a portion of their dollars toward lobbying against environment and public health protections, while also funding climate denier candidates. This summer, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson said that he recognized carbon pollution causes warming, but minimized the full impact saying “those consequences are manageable.” Meanwhile, extreme weather damages in the U.S. alone have potentially cost up to $144 billion since 2011.

Below are the highlights of where Exxon and Shell spend their earnings:

ExxonMobil:

– Exxon received an estimated $600 million in annual tax breaks. It paid just a 13 percent federal tax rate.
– Exxon spent $5.1 billion — or 53 percent– of this quarter’s profits to buy back its own stock, which enriches the largest shareholders.
– Oil production for Exxon for Q3 in 2012 is 5 percent lower than this time last year (2.1 million of barrels per day in Q3 2012 vs. 2.2 million in Q3 2011).
– In 2012 alone, Exxon spent $12.7 million lobbying Congress, according to the latest Federal Election Commission figures.
– Exxon spent $2.1 million on direct federal and congressional campaign contributions so far in the 2012 election cycle, with 90 percent going to Republicans.
– Some of the biggest Congressional recipients include Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH).
– Exxon’s CEO Rex Tillerson’s total compensation in 2011 was $34.9 million.

Royal Dutch Shell:

– Shell received a $200 million annual tax break in 2011.
– Shell has $18.8 billion in cash-on-hand.
– In the third quarter, Shell used $149 million of its profits to buy back its own stock.
– Shell’s oil production decreased by 5 percent compared to this time last year (1.59 million of barrels per day in 2012 vs. 1.67 million in 2011).
– Shell spent more on lobbying than the other Big Oil companies – $12.9 million so far in the 2012 election cycle – according to the latest Federal Election Commission figures.
–Shell just finished drilling top holes in Arctic waters for the year, after issues with its containment barge and ice flows created delays.

The last of the Big Five oil companies, Chevron, will release its third quarter profits Friday.

The cover of the year goes to Bloomberg Businessweek, “It’s Global Warming, Stupid.”

Bill Clinton famously campaigned on the slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Upwards of $50 billion damages from the Frankenstorm Sandy — which was made far more destructive by manmade climate change — underscores the point that it will be increasingly difficult to separate the economy from how we respond to (or fail to respond to) global warming.

The story opens:

Yes, yes, it’s unsophisticated to blame any given storm on climate change. Men and women in white lab coats tell us—and they’re right—that many factors contribute to each severe weather episode. Climate deniers exploit scientific complexity to avoid any discussion at all.

Clarity, however, is not beyond reach. Hurricane Sandy demands it: At least 40 U.S. deaths. Economic losses expected to climb as high as $50 billion. Eight million homes without power. Hundreds of thousands of people evacuated. More than 15,000 flights grounded. Factories, stores, and hospitals shut. Lower Manhattan dark, silent, and underwater.

The piece goes on to provide much-needed clarity — and our favorite climate metaphor:

Read more

by Tom Kenworthy

Many parts of the nation are experiencing a boom that is unlocking large new reserves of oil and gas from shale formations. While this means an increase in domestic fuel production, it is also fostering a gusher of increasingly bitter fights among local authorities, state governments, energy companies, and landowners about who has the right to regulate where and how drilling occurs.

Spurred in large part by concerns over the drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, citizens and local governments are mobilizing in support of bans or other restrictions on oil and gas drilling and, specifically, fracking.

Fracking—the high-pressure injection of water, chemicals, and sand to fracture underground rock formations and release trapped natural gas and oil—along with advances in horizontal drilling, has made it possible to develop extensive new fields of oil and gas around the United States. But the practice now used in an estimated 95 percent of U.S. oil and gas wells has elevated concerns about the health and safety of drilling, particularly in regard to those communities close to oil and gas developments.

As of late July “more than 200 municipalities in 15 states, including city councils, town boards, and county legislatures, have banned natural gas drilling that uses hydraulic fracturing,” according to OMB Watch, a nonprofit organization that follows the Office of Management and Budget. Some of these recent developments include:

• In Colorado the state commission that oversees development of oil and gas resources has taken the city of Longmont to court to block the city’s new restrictions on drilling in residential areas and its requirement that water quality be monitored for five years after wells are hydraulically fractured. Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) has strongly backed the agency’s suit.
• In Pennsylvania municipalities are suing the state over a new law that bars them from using their zoning authority to determine where wells can be drilled. The dispute is now before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, after a lower court ruled in July that the law violates the state constitution.
• In New York more than 140 towns and cities have imposed bans or moratoria on drilling, anticipating that a four-year-old statewide suspension on fracking will be lifted once environmental and health reviews are completed. Energy companies have filed lawsuits to question the legality of these local antifracking ordinances, and in October two New York judges ruled in separate decisions that local governments are allowed to prohibit drilling—decisions that are likely to be appealed.
• In Ohio several dozen local communities have called for drilling bans, despite a state law that gives sole regulatory authority over oil and gas development to the state government. In an attempt to gain some local control over drilling, activists are pushing communities to adopt what is called “limited home rule,” which would ideally give the local communities more control over oil and gas drilling, and bills asserting the right to clean air and water.

The uprising against drilling and fracking is widespread enough that the Natural Resources Defense Council, a national environmental group, announced in late September that it has established a new program to assist fracking opponents with legal and policy advice. The Community Fracking Defense Project will operate in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and North Carolina.

“For too long, communities around the country have had little defense against the oil and gas companies that sweep into their neighborhoods and start fracking without regard for the impacts on the people who live there,” said Kate Sinding, a senior attorney in the New York office of the National Resources Defense Council.

Read more

An independent body set up to consider Australia’s official target of generating 20 percent of its energy needs by 2020 from renewable sources has rejected calls from incumbent utilities and heavy industry to scale back the target. [Renewable Energy World]

Michael Brown, former President George W. Bush’s former FEMA director who was criticized for his slow reaction to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, said on Monday that President Obama may have acted too quickly on Hurricane Sandy this week. [The Hill]

Campaigners said the devastating storm could turn out to be the October Surprise of the elections, exposing Republicans’ failure to engage with an issue that is no longer a distant threat, but a present day danger. [Guardian]

Two nuclear reactors in New Jersey and New York that had shut down during superstorm Sandy remained offline Wednesday, but waters receded from one plant that had issued a safety alert. [Wall Street Journal]

With President Obama getting a bear hug from Chris Christie as he toured storm-battered New Jersey, Mitt Romney is facing an unusual challenge: pushing his way back into the national debate. [Daily Beast]

Superstorm Sandy was no freak, say experts, but rather a hint of a coming era when millions of Americans will struggle to survive killer weather. [CNN]

According to a report published on October 17 by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), 2012 has been a record year for the development of wind power within the United States. The U.S. wind industry has surpassed 50,000 megawatts of electrical power generation capacity, with a total of 4,728 megawatts added this year alone and another 8,430 megawatts in active development throughout 29 states and Puerto Rico. [Renewable Energy World]

After spending more than $4.5 billion in permits, personnel and equipment over the past six years to assure regulators and native Alaskans that its work would be safe and environmentally benign, Shell finally got a shot to try drilling wells here this fall. It didn’t go as planned. [Wall Street Journal]

Stanford University scientists have built the first solar cell made entirely of carbon, a promising alternative to the expensive materials used in photovoltaic devices today. [Science Daily]