The best conservative tweet of election night may belong to David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Bush:

Political junkies may know that the right-wing denial of data extended to the countless pre-election polls showing the President stubbornly retaining a lead in the decisive swing state of Ohio.

Heck, there’s even a website, UnskewedPolls.com, that “fixed” the polls conservatives didn’t like by using a different — which is to say, more Republican — electorate model. Think of it as a WattsUpWithThatPoll — a website where cherry-picking and phony analysis allowed readers to exist in a parallel universe to our own, in this case one where the voting public demographically resembled the electorate of the 1980s.

Reality intruded last night, as it inevitably does when one ignores basic arithmetic, statistical analysis, and inexorable demographic trends — or basic physics, for that matter.

Frum is a card-carrying conservative — he coined the phrase “axis of evil.” And his ironic tweet foreshadows an even more painful reality that will eventually intrude on those currently duped by the professional climate science deniers. But instead of this being “Nate Silver was right about Ohio” it’s gonna be “Al Gore was right about climate change.”

Unfortunately, climate denial is far more consequential than polling denial. And as amusing as Frum’s tweet is, it is of a kind with David Brooks’ line in a 2005 piece on conservative intellectual exhaustion, “Running Out of Steam”:

Global warming is real (conservatives secretly know this).

The tragedy is that seven years later, that remains the best-kept secret in DC.

by Mary Anne Hitt, via the Sierra Club

President Obama’s victory yesterday was a victory for clean energy, one that gives us a fighting chance to slash coal pollution and turn the corner on climate change, in the wake of a devastating hurricane that brought global warming into sharp, painful focus for millions of Americans.

As the Sierra Club’s Michael Brune said on election night, “We did it.” Fossil fuel billionaires had spent at record levels to defeat Obama in this election, and Romney had returned the favor, promising to open the floodgates on more mining and drilling if elected. But then Hurricane Sandy hit the Eastern Seaboard, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed President Obama as the candidate most likely to lead on climate change, and Romney’s dismissal of rising oceans as a laugh line in his GOP Convention speech became an especially chilling out-of-touch episode, in a Republican Presidential campaign that had no shortage of such moments.

Ironically, the coal industry had pinned its hopes on Romney — the consummate businessman — to protect the industry from the harsh realities of the free market. Now, the coal industry will have to stop hiding behind inflammatory slogans like “the war on coal,” and will have to grapple with a marketplace and an American public that are turning away from coal in favor of cleaner, cheaper sources of energy. Coal will only produce 37% of America’s electricity this year, down from 50% just five years ago, and those trends show no signs of reversing.

In reality, the decline of coal and the rise of clean energy have more to do with Main Street and Wall Street than with Pennsylvania Avenue. Over the past four years, in almost every state in the nation, hundreds of thousands of people have worked together to retire polluting local coal plants, get more wind and solar power on the grid, and use energy more efficiently. Today, 125 coal plants — out of over 500 nationwide — are now slated for retirement. As a result, U.S. carbon emissions are at their lowest level in two decades, clean energy is coming on line at record levels, and tens of thousands of Americans now have clean energy jobs.

The marketplace and the American people have spoken, and there is no amount of grandstanding by coal barons that will turn this tide. By the end of Obama’s second term, the Beyond Coal Campaign plans to:

• Secure the retirement of one-third of the nation’s coal plants.

• Power the nation with record amounts of clean energy and energy efficiency.

• End mountaintop removal once and for all.

• Close additional coal pollution loopholes, including long-overdue protections for carbon, soot, smog, coal ash, and water pollution.

• Prevent increased coal exports overseas to places where it will be burned with fewer pollution controls and no climate safeguards.

Making this happen will require the continued energy and dedication of our Beyond Coal grassroots movement. While the coal industry did its best to paint President Obama as their sworn enemy during the election, in fact, in Obama’s first term, he was a centrist when it came to energy. On one hand, his Administration took historic measures to clean up some of the most dangerous pollution from coal — mercury, arsenic, lead, and other toxins — while also putting a carbon standard in place for new power plants. The Obama White House also helped jumpstart clean energy, creating tens of thousands of new wind and solar jobs and helping to ensure that America will be a lead innovator in the clean energy revolution that will power the nations and economies of the twenty-first century.

Read more

by Bob Berwyn, via Summit County Citizens Voice

Scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey say they’ve quantified the amount of greenhouse gases that could be released into the atmosphere as Arctic permafrost starts to melt.

“This study quantifies the impact on Earth’s two most important chemical cycles, carbon and nitrogen, from thawing of permafrost under future climate warming scenarios,” said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. “While the permafrost of the polar latitudes may seem distant and disconnected from the daily activities of most of us, its potential to alter the planet’s habitability when destabilized is very real.”

As much as 44 billion tons of nitrogen and 850 billion tons of carbon could be released into the environment as the region begins to thaw over the next century. This nitrogen and carbon are likely to impact ecosystems, the atmosphere, and water resources including rivers and lakes. For context, this is roughly the amount of carbon stored in the atmosphere today.

The release of carbon and nitrogen in permafrost could exacerbate the warming phenomenon and will impact water systems on land and offshore according to USGS scientists and their domestic and international collaborators.

The previously unpublished nitrogen figure is useful for scientists who are making climate predictions with computer climate models, while the carbon estimate is consistent and gives more credence to other scientific studies with similar carbon estimates.

To generate the estimates, scientists studied how permafrost-affected soils, known as Gelisols, thaw under various climate scenarios. They found that all Gelisols are not alike: Some have soil materials that are very peaty, with lots of decaying organic matter that burns easily — these will impart newly thawed nitrogen into the ecosystem and atmosphere.

Other Gelisols have materials that are very nutrient rich — these will impart a lot of nitrogen into the ecosystem. All Gelisols will contribute carbon dioxide and likely some methane into the atmosphere as a result of decomposition once the permafrost thaws. These gases will contribute to warming. What was frozen for thousands of years will enter our ecosystems and atmosphere as a new contributor.

“The scientific community researching this phenomena has made these international data available for the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As permafrost receives more attention, we are sharing our data and our insights to guide those models as they portray how the land, atmosphere, and ocean interact,” said study lead Jennifer Harden, USGS Research Soil Scientist.

The article, “Field information links permafrost carbon to physical vulnerabilities of thawing,” was published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

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

By Jessica Goad, Christy Goldfuss, and Tom Kenworthy

In an election where public lands played a surprisingly prominent role, last night’s results were a decisive show of support for protecting lands and the leaders that champion their value.

Public lands issues surfaced in a number of key races and referenda, particularly in the West. In some respects, this election can be seen as an endorsement of the very philosophy behind our 700 million acres of public lands — that they are open to and managed for all of us, not just the wealthy few.  Here’s how the subject played out in Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, and across the U.S.

Nationally

Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama had vast differences in their perspectives on public lands issues. Romney’s plan to turn decisions about energy development on public lands over to the states brought significant criticism, and was a major topic of debate on lands issues.  Various constituencies came out against the proposal, including sportsmen (one columnist noted that “fewer proposals could be more frightening” for hunters and anglers) and the industry itself (the International Association of Drilling Contractors said the plan would cause operators to “tear their hair out.”)

And as this online video highlights, Romney botched a response to a question about why public lands exist, telling told the Reno Gazette-Journal in February that he doesn’t know “what [their] purpose is”:

Arizona

It is perhaps no surprise that in Arizona, the Grand Canyon was the central public lands issue in the election.  Proposition 120, a ballot measure that would give Arizona “sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction” the land, air, water, and wildlife within its boundaries, was resoundingly defeated by a 2-1 margin.   This measure — the embodiment of a radical push for state’s rights that materialized with the Tea Party — would have included turning the Grand Canyon over to the state.

Additionally, public lands rose to the surface in the Arizona Senate race, which pitted Representative Jeff Flake (R) against Richard Carmona (D).  Flake — a former uranium industry lobbyist — prioritized mining around the Grand Canyon during his time as a representative, and even as late as October was pushing for the development of these “prime mining lands.”  In response, the League of Conservation Voters and Majority PAC dropped $1.3 million in television ads against Flake, focusing exclusively on his work to undermine protections for the Grand Canyon.

Watch one of them:

Read more

by Alden Meyer, via Union of Concerned Scientists

After months of speeches and debates, and billions of dollars of campaign ads, the elections are over and President Obama has won a second term in office. Now comes the hard part: how to move forward in a polarized political environment where the two major parties don”t agree on the overall role of government, on most policies, and all too often, not even on the facts.

One big unknown is how Republican leaders will respond to the president’s re-election victory.  In October of 2010, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell  said ”the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”  With that goal no longer an option, will Senator McConnell and his fellow Republican Senators be more open to compromise with the president?  Or will they be looking over their right shoulders at possible Tea Party primary challengers like those who took out Dick Lugar this year and Mike Castle in 2010 (Richard Mourdock and Christine O’Donnell. respectively, both of whom lost in the general election)?  Similarly, with a continuing solid margin of control in the House and a structural advantage because of redistricting in the 2014 elections and beyond, will Speaker Boehner and other House Republican leaders be inclined (and able) to reach deals with a Democratic president and Senate, or are we fated to ever more polarization and gridlock? With the looming fiscal cliff negotiations over taxes, spending, and the debt ceiling, we’ll have the answers to these questions fairly soon.

The president’s science agenda

President Obama laid out a clear science-based agenda for the next four years in his answers to the questions posed by Science Debate 2012, a consortium of science groups including UCS:

• doubling funding for key research agencies and training 100,000 new science and math teachers over the next decade to”meet the urgent need to train one million additional science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) graduates over the next decade;
• taking additional steps to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, and to increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy resources;
• bolstering the use of organic farming methods, minimizing pesticides and antibiotics in our food, and further strengthening the ability of the Food and Drug Administration to improve our food safety system; and
• developing a comprehensive approach to improve water quality, restore rivers and critical watersheds, and promote more efficient use of our clean water supplies;
• building on his first term scientific integrity agenda, “by ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda, making scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology, and including the public in our decision making process.”

But none of these issues received much attention in the presidential campaign, with the possible exception of climate change during this past week, in the wake of superstorm Sandy and Mayor Bloomberg’s endorsement of President Obama. And the continued split party control of Congress, combined with the difficult fiscal environment, will make progress on these and other science-based issues difficult, to say the least. It will take leadership from the president and his team to rally public support and build bipartisan coalitions for action on any of them.

Addressing climate change

Read more

by Noreen Nielsen

The 2012 campaign season was one of the most expensive in history, with an estimated $6 billion spent on television ads in races up and down the ticket. Not surprisingly, corporate polluters and other dirty energy interests were some of the largest outside spenders in the 2012 campaign cycle. These groups—which include Restore Our Future, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Energy Alliance, Americans for Prosperity, Crossroads GPS, and several more—bet big and lost big.

In just the last two months of the campaign, outside groups linked to dirty energy sources or the promotion of a dirty energy agenda spent more than $270 million on TV ads in the presidential, House, and Senate races and industry ads promoting oil, gas, and coal interest, and more than $31 million was spent on energy-related ads, according to a Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis of data from Kantar Media’s CMAG. This includes more than $109 million spent in congressional races with $21.7 million on energy-specific ads. During that time, more than 59,600 spots ran on energy and environmental issues in the presidential race and key House and Senate races.

Since April outside polluter allied groups spent $265.9 million on campaign ads in the presidential race alone, with $15.7 million going toward energy-related issues. These groups also spent more than $111.5 million in Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Colorado, putting more than $6.2 million specifically toward energy-related ads. Yet they failed to unseat President Barack Obama, who won the election with at least 303 electoral votes.

These outside polluter-backed groups spent more than $60 million since September to influence Senate races, but candidates that supported clean energy and common-sense public health protections for our air and water were elected to the Senate in key areas. Senate races in Montana, Ohio, and Virginia, for example, saw $17.3 million spent in outside polluter-backed TV ads over the past two months, with $6 million on energy-related ads attacking Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Senate candidate Tim Kaine (D-VA). Both Sen. Brown and Sen.-elect Kaine defeated their polluter-backed opponents. The Montana senate race is still too close to call.

These same polluter interests also spent more than $49.7 million since September to influence House races, including $12.9 million on energy-related ads, but candidates in key races that supported clean energy and common-sense public health protections won.

In addition to dirty energy groups’ direct spending on specific electoral campaigns, they also pumped millions of dollars into generic “branding” campaigns promoting oil, gas, and coal interests, such as the American Petroleum Institute’s “I’m an Energy Voter” campaign. From September 1 through November 5, for example, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and the American Petroleum Institute spent $5.5 million on these types of ads.

It’s clear that the voters have spoken and rejected these special interest appeals to keep special tax breaks for Big Oil and their allies and reject pollution reductions. Now it’s time to move forward with a clean energy and clean air agenda that protects our health, creates American jobs, secures our energy future, and addresses climate change.

Noreen Nielsen is the Energy Communications Director for the Think Progress War Room at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Note: Groups with clear polluter ties and/or groups that ran ads promoting pro-fossil fuel interests include: American Action Network; American Chemistry Council; American Commitment; American Energy Alliance; American Future Fund; Americans for Job Security; Americans for Prosperity; Americans for Tax Reform; Center for Individual Freedom; Checks and Balances for Economic Growth; Citizens for a Working America PAC; Club for Growth; Congressional Leadership Fund; American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS; Ending Spending Fund; Let Freedom Ring; National Association of Manufacturers; National Federation of Independent Businesses; National Mining Association; Now or Never PAC; Restore Our Future; Super PAC for America; Treasure Coast Jobs Coalition;, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; American Petroleum Institute; American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity; and Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports.

by Heather Taylor-Miesle, via NRDC’s Action Fund

Americans have returned a clean energy champion to the White House, but they didn’t stop there. All the way down the ticket, voters overwhelmingly favored candidates who support clean energy, clean air, and strong public health safeguards.

This is victory for everyone who likes to breathe clean air and drink clean water, and it is a resounding defeat for polluters and the dirty agenda they tried to sell to voters.

The fossil fuel industry went all in on this election. By mid-September, oil, gas, and coal companies had spent more than $150 million on campaign ads. Texas oil barons handed over $10 million to Governor Romney in one week alone—the week before he released his energy plan. By the time all the checks are tallied, the amount spent by dirty energy companies will be well over $200 million.

And yet the fossil fuel industry has little to show for it. Oil, gas, and coal companies spent $20 million to defeat Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), but he won anyway. He ran on his record of supporting renewable power and environmental protections and voters rewarded him for it.

They did the same thing in the New Mexico Senate race. Fossil fuel companies opened their checkbooks for Former Representative Heather Wilson, a pro-drilling, anti-climate action candidate. But voters preferred Representative Martin Heinrich and the fact that he made clean energy and climate action a central part of his campaign.

In Virginia, fossil fuel companies and other outside interests spent heavily to take a senate seat away from the Democratic Party. Voters weren’t buying it. They elected Former Governor Tim Kaine who has a long history of standing up for clean air and public health safeguards.

It turns out my mother was right: money can’t buy you love. If you can’t buy it for $200 million, then it’s not for sale.

That means these Senators are free to do the right thing on clean energy and clean air. They underwent a full-throttled, deep-pocketed attack on from the right and survived. Why? Because voters did not take the side of polluters. They took the side of clean energy champions.

This shouldn’t come as a big surprise; poll after poll confirmed voters’ desire for a clean energy economy. A September survey by Public Policy Polling, for instance, found that 53 percent of undecided voters in battleground states said they would support a Congressional candidate who wants to extend tax incentives for wind power, while 31 percent would choose the candidate who would kill those incentives. Fifty-nine percent said they favored Congressional candidates who support reducing mercury pollution from power plants and only 23 percent would chose candidates who oppose mercury standards.

Voters recognize that clean energy and clean air deliver real benefits to our communities. More than 120,000 Americans have jobs in the solar industry, and more than 150,000 people work building parts for and assembling clean cars—hybrids, electric cars, and other advanced vehicles that weren’t even available 10 years ago. More than 1 million Americans are now saving money on their electric builds because they made their homes more energy efficient. And soon, hundreds of thousands of children will breathe easier once power plants start following new limits on mercury, lead, and other air pollutants.

Oil and gas companies thought that if they spent millions and millions of dollars, they could distract Americans from these benefits and undermine support for clean energy. They were wrong, and they lost. Now the case is closed. It’s time for champions in the White House and Congress to respect voters’ wishes and stand  up for clean energy, clean air, and a stable climate.

Heather Taylor-Miesle is the day-to-day director of the NRDC Action Fund where she guides the organization’s strategies to pass priority legislation. This piece was originally published at NRDC’s Action Fund and was reprinted with permission.

President Obama has been re-elected for a second term. “We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet,” he said in his acceptance speech early this morning. [Read the full transcript]

Democrats will maintain control of the U.S. Senate after their candidates picked up Republican-held seats in Indiana, Maine and Massachusetts, leaving the GOP no path to a takeover with the remaining competitive races that remain undecided. [USA Today]

Political groups of all stripes spent a record sum on the election thanks in part to a string of court and regulatory changes that loosened restrictions on political spending by corporations, unions and individuals. Less certain is whether that spending made much of a difference. [Wall Street Journal]

Green groups say Independent Maine Senate winner Angus King will be an ally when he gets to Washington, D.C. [The Hill]

Voters turned out the lights on the self-described “solar team” of three Democrats who hoped to control the Arizona Corporation Commission. [Phoenix New Times]

Proposal 3, which called for amending the Michigan Constitution to require 25% of the state’s energy to come from renewable resources by 2025, was easily trounced Tuesday. [Detroit Free Press]

Despite a few years removed from the national zeitgeist, there is one place where climate change has remained front and center – movie theaters. [Chicago Tribune]

F-gases, used in refrigeration and linked with high levels of global warming, need to be cut substantially by 2030, Europe’s climate boss said on Tuesday. [Reuters]

An epidemic of dengue fever in India is fostering a growing sense of alarm even as government officials here have publicly refused to acknowledge the scope of a problem that experts say is threatening hundreds of millions of people, not just in India but around the world. [New York Times]

NASA put together two visualizations to show how Hurricane Sandy — which is likely to go down in history as one of the costliest hurricanes to strike the U.S. — compared to the storm that currently occupies the top spot on that list, Hurricane Katrina. [Climate Central]