A round-up of the top climate and energy news. Please post other links below.

North Dakota has passed Alaska to become the No. 2 oil-producing state in the country, reflecting how the embrace of new drilling technology is redrawing the U.S. energy map. [Wall Street Journal]

Americans just lived through the hottest 12 months ever recorded, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Tuesday. [LA Times]

Should nations of the world ever see fit to sign a treaty limiting emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide gas, scientists from the University of Utah and Harvard have developed a way to verify compliance. [CleanTechnica]

A proposed $5bn transmission line connecting wind farms off the East coast of the US to the mainland is on track to come online by 2017, after the Google-backed project cleared another regulatory hurdle. [Guardian]

Because sometimes to get your point across you need to dress up as an Arctic Tern, scores of anti-drilling activists on Tuesday gathered outside the White House dressed in fuzzy onesies and polar bear masks. [Huffington Post]

Chinese and Indian airlines failed to submit carbon-dioxide emissions data for 2011, disregarding European rules that seek to expand the region’s emissions trading system to include aviation. [New York Times]

The oil company Total started pumping heavy mud down its leaking well in the North Sea on Tuesday in an attempt to stop an escape of gas that has lasted nearly eight weeks and could deprive Britain of nearly 6% of its supply this summer. [Guardian]

In an attempt to keep the political war against renewable energy in the headlines, Republicans are holding another hearing to question the value of government investments in the sector.

Looks like ten political sideshows on Solyndra weren’t enough.

If tomorrow morning’s hearing were being used as a chance to objectively assess where the industry stands, that would be one thing. But the title of the meeting gives away the real political intent: “The Obama Administration’s Green Energy Gamble: What Have All The Taxpayer Subsidies Achieved?

Actually, those green energy investments have yielded substantial returns. And before the political grandstanding begins in the House of Representatives tomorrow, here are five important things you should know about how promotion of clean energy has supported American businesses and consumers:

1. The 1603 grant program supported up to 75,000 jobs and 23,000 renewable energy projects during the height of the recession. When the recession hit, it was very difficult for project developers to find banks that were willing to utilize tax credits. So a cash grant program was created to give companies an easier way to finance projects. While it’s very difficult to know the exact influence of the grant on each project, the program played a major role in maintaining momentum — helping support $25 billion in gross economic activity, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

2. The production tax credit helps leverage up to $20 billion in private investment annually. With this key tax credit in place, the wind industry has dropped costs by 90% over the last few decades. It’s helped states like Iowa reach 20% wind penetration — bringing that state over 215 businesses that support 5,000 workers. Across the rest of the U.S., the entire industry supports 75,000 jobs, with 30,000 in manufacturing. However, up to 37,000 of those jobs could be at risk due Congressional lawmakers’ inability to extend the tax credit.

3. The loan guarantee program is expected to cost $2 billion less than budgeted. This program has gotten a black eye due to the bankruptcies of a few companies — most famously Solyndra — that received guarantees. But according to John McCain’s National Finance Chairman, Herb Allison, the cost to taxpayers will likely be far less than initially thought. In fact, over the last 20 years of experience, the U.S. government has shown a knack for managing risk — with loans and loan guarantee programs only costing tax payers 94 cents for every $100 dollars invested.

4. Home weatherization grew 1000% from April to June of 2011, creating 14,800 jobs. After a slow ramp-up, efficiency programs supported by the stimulus package have helped weatherize hundreds of thousands of homes. In addition to supporting the retrofits of individual homes, the Obama administration has supported the Better Buildings Initiative, a program that has leveraged billions of private dollars to upgrade more than 4 billion square feet of public and private buildings in the next two years. That’s enough demand to support over 100,000 jobs.

5. ARPA-E has supported dozens of potentially groundbreaking technologies in advanced materials, renewable fuels, electricity generation, waste heat, and battery storage. Helping enhance America’s lead in technological innovation, the Advanced Research Research Projects Agency for Energy — initially funded through the stimulus package — has helped inventors, companies, and university labs boost their work. This program has immense bi-partisan support for promoting the “innovative research that makes America great and has fueled our economic growth for generations.”

Despite these successes, Republicans continue milking the Solyndra bankruptcy for an election-year story that doesn’t hold up — dragging the rest of the clean energy industry into the mud.

The sector has gone through some high-profile shake-ups and bankruptcies, so it’s the duty of lawmakers to understand how tax payer dollars are being deployed. That’s a supportable endeavor. But holding yet another hearing to lambast the President for a so-called “gamble” in clean energy isn’t productive for anyone.

by Adam James

At the advent of the Internet 30 years ago, having large amounts of personal information accessible on a shared network would have been unthinkable — even if that network would make our lives easier. But we found a way to navigate this privacy minefield with one straightforward idea: Entrust our personal information to certain entities with the expectation that it will be secured, and, in exchange, we get a life with more choices. While there is sometimes an inverse relationship between access and privacy, it is a challenge we have overcome.

The tension between data access and privacy is evident today in the smart electrical grid. It is “smart” because it can harness new information and communications technology to expand its functions while increasing efficiency and accessibility. The transformative potential of this information intelligence is amazing — just ask anyone making the choice between a landline and a smart phone.

Over the next few years, deployment of new technologies will ensure that the quality and quantity of energy information increases dramatically. Qualitatively, smart appliances will reveal much more detailed feedback about consumers’ patterns, such as time and length of use. Quantitatively, the data points about a consumer’s energy usage will go from thousands to millions annually.

This data will empower consumers in two ways. First, managing their energy consumption will help save them money. They’ll see lower energy bills from setting HVAC systems to operate intermittently when no one’s home and having appliances go dark when they’re unused. Second, two-way energy flow between consumers and electric utilities will allow consumers to participate in energy commerce, selling unused energy back onto the grid for profit. Harnessing distributed generation projects, such as rooftop solar panels, using demand response by getting cash rebates for not consuming energy at peak hours, and taking advantage of personal electric vehicles as battery storage units for the grid are all examples of how people can use enabling technology to change the game.

But here’s the rub. The data reveals a tremendous amount of real-time information about the consumer, which could lead to severe privacy violations if it were mined for behaviors and preferences.

This data clearly needs to be secured. However, if the security is too restrictive, it will inhibit third-party innovation, hurting businesses trying to enter the market. If it is too lax, consumers may be exploited, and companies could face serious legal action.

Read more

By Tom Kenworthy and Jessica Goad

Congressional Republicans who think the only purpose of public lands is to provide subsidized commodities to industry generally ignore the many economists who provide hard evidence that protecting natural spaces provides huge economic benefits.

If these lawmakers don’t believe economists, perhaps they’ll believe another group with political sway: small business owners.

A new survey conducted for the Small Business Majority finds that 63 percent of small business owners in Colorado say access to protected public lands and outdoor spaces is a major part of why they set up operations in the state.

The results show that these small business owners strongly support the president’s “all of the above” energy strategy — with more than half saying they would be more likely to support such a plan if it includes steps to conserve some areas and keep them free of development.

By a 4:1 margin, those small business owners say that creating new national parks and monuments would have a positive impact on jobs and the economy.

“Our nation’s most prolific job creators are asking that smart steps are taken to preserve Colorado’s natural assets because they believe it’s good for business,” said John Arensmeyer, founded and CEO of Small Business Majority.

These small businessmen understand intuitively what the experts continue to explain in their anaysis.

Last fall, for example, more than 100 economists wrote to President Obama urging him to expand efforts to protect more national parks, national monuments and wilderness areas. “Protected public lands are significant contributors to economic growth,” they said in their letter.

More recently, Headwaters Economics, a consulting firm based in Montana, found that more than four times as many jobs are created in non-metro counties with protected public lands than in those without. Counties with more than 30% of their lands federally protected increased jobs by 344% over 40 years, compared to just an 80% increase in jobs in non-metro counties with no protected federal lands.

Read more

by Daniel J. Weiss

The Department of Interior released an updated analysis of fossil fuel leases today, finding that more than two thirds of offshore leases and half of onshore leases are sitting idle — “neither producing nor under active exploration.”

The report, “Oil and Gas Lease Utilization, Onshore and Offshore Updated Report to the President,” explained that oil and gas companies hold thousands of undeveloped leases. Despite holding these inactive leases, the oil industry continues to demand the opening of new, previously protected federal lands and waters areas to drilling.

The report found that:

More than 70 percent of the tens of millions of offshore acres currently under lease are inactive, neither producing nor currently subject to approved or pending exploration or development plans. Out of nearly 36 million acres leased offshore, only about 10 million acres are active – leaving nearly 72 percent of the offshore leased area idle.

In the lower 48 states, an additional 20.8 million acres, or 56 percent of onshore leased acres, remain idle. Furthermore, there are approximately 7,000 approved permits for drilling on federal and Indian lands that have not yet been drilled by companies.

According to the Energy Information Administration, total federal oil production (offshore and onshore) has increased by 13 percent during the first three years of the Obama administration combined, compared with the last three years of the previous administration. According to independent analysis, the total number of active rigs operating on the U.S. outer continental shelf was higher in January 2012 than any time since May 2010.

The American Petroleum Institute – Big Oil’s lobbying arm — claims that the Department of Interior ignores exploratory work on leases; however, that is clearly included in DOI’s assessment above.

API recently demanded that the Obama Administration open up the North Atlantic to “seismic exploration” for oil. This is an area that supports vital American fisheries.

In addition to holding thousands of undeveloped leases while lobbying to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, off the New England Coast, and in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the big five oil companies produced 12 percent less oil in 2011 than in 2006 — all while making record profits.

Daniel J. Weiss is Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

By Jessica Goad

In a surprise move last night, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) vetoed a bill demanding that the federal government turn over up to 25 million acres of public lands to the state by 2014 or face a lawsuit.  In a statement, Brewer said that she was:

“…concerned about the lack of certainty this legislation could create for individuals holding existing leases on federal lands.  Given the difficult economic times, I do not believe this is the time to add to that uncertainty.”

The overwhelming legal expert opinion is that this type of bill is unconstitutional — which is how the courts have ruled over many decades.  The Salt Lake Tribune called a similar effort in Utah “tilting at windmills.”

This is a blow to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate front group that designs “model” legislation and is funded by the likes of Koch Industries, BP, Exxon Mobil, and Shell.  ALEC endorsed this particular legislation, as the Associated Press reported:

Lawmakers in Utah and Arizona have said the legislation is endorsed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that advocates conservative ideals, and they expect it to eventually be introduced in other Western states.

Turning over public lands could eventually lead to their privatization, opening them up to mining, drilling and other industrial activity.

A similar bill demanding federal lands be turned over to the state was signed into law by Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R) last month.  The state has demanded 30 million acres of public lands by 2015 or it will sue.  And, the Utah legislature has already authorized the state’s attorney general to spend $3 million on the anticipated legal battle.

Brewer’s veto of this bill is also a major setback to those aiming to start a new “sagebrush rebellion” in the West, and may bring an end to other lawmakers’ dreams of privatizing public lands.  As Arizona state senator Al Melvin, the primary sponsor of the bill, said:

What we envision is all of the Western states going before the Supreme Court to force this issue.

It seems that for now, this unconstitutional effort has been thwarted, despite similar bills rumored to be in development in Montana, Idaho, and New Mexico.

Jessica Goad is Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress.

Via the Sierra Club’s Compass Blog

Twenty of the world’s leading off-grid clean energy entrepreneurs sent a letter this week to World Bank Group president Robert Zoellick requesting $500 million in financial commitments to help them deliver on the world’s energy access goals. The group’s letter was backed by a letter of support from the CEOs of more than 25 leading civil society organizations from around the world, which calls for these commitments to take the form of a pledge at the upcoming Rio+20 earth summit.

The call comes six months into the United Nations Sustainable Energy for All (UN SEFA) campaign, which seeks to deliver universal energy access by 2030. In order to make good on that pledge the International Energy Agency (IEA) has found that half of all energy services must be provided by off-grid clean energy.

Unfortunately, today’s investments in energy access are heavily skewed toward traditional grid extension, with billions going to large scale centralized power projects which are often heavily polluting coal plants.  Worse, according to the IEA, an over reliance on these investments at the expense of off grid clean energy investments will leave one billion of the world’s poor without energy access by 2030.

“There are literally one billion reasons to change our current approach to energy access,” says Justin Guay, Washington Representative with the Sierra Club’s International Climate Program. “The World Bank has a tremendous opportunity to do just that by committing to rapidly scale up investments in off grid clean energy at Rio.”

Republicans are the default choice for oil and gas dollars, having received 88 percent of the industry’s political contributions in 2011. In return, House and Senate Republicans block regulations the industry deems a potential threat.

In an April 23 e-mail acquired by National Journal, a staffer for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) called on the industry to utilize their partnership to coordinate attacks on the White House:

Senate Republicans, who led a successful fight this spring against Obama’s proposal to repeal billions of dollars in tax subsidies enjoyed by major oil companies, felt betrayed by the industry’s collaboration with the White House on fracking regulations. The e-mail to top oil and gas lobbyists made that unhappiness clear, and it suggested that the industry was being duped.

“Moving forward, we—your partners—would kindly ask for better coordination and communication from you to prevent the Obama administration from pulling similar stunts in the future,” wrote Inhofe aide David Banks in the 800-word e-mail to two dozen lobbyists.

Some lobbyists apparently “cringed” at the wording. But coordinated attacks on behalf of Big Oil interests are nothing new, even if lawmakers don’t usually use such frank language. A host of EPA pollution regulations have faced congressional opposition, including Inhofe’s resolution to prevent new limits on mercury pollution in power plants. Inhofe, a well-known climate denier, is also one of the top recipients of oil and gas contributions with well over $1 million for his career.

Earlier this year, the Republican-Big Oil partnership played out in the Senate’s vote on oil subsidies, when 47 Senators — mostly Republican — blocked the vote. Those Senators received over four times the oil and gas money than lawmakers supporting an end to the oil industry’s permanent tax breaks.

A round-up of the top climate and energy news stories. Please post other links below.

Letter to the Editor: Your recent editorials on the federal wind-energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) and renewable portfolio standard (RPS) (“Gouged by the Wind,” May 5 and “Windy Republicans,” May 7) are off the mark. The wind-power industry is an American success story that is helping us build our manufacturing base, create jobs, lower energy costs and strengthen our energy security. [Wall Street Journal]

Little by little, Hawaii’s iconic beaches are disappearing. Most beaches on the state’s three largest islands are eroding, and the erosion is likely to accelerate as sea levels rise, the United States Geological Survey is reporting. [New York Times]

Hundreds of species of mammals in the Western Hemisphere may not be able to migrate with the projected speed of climate change, according to a new study released Monday. [USA Today]

In addition to the West, drought conditions are also prevalent in the Southeast, Mid-Atlantic, and parts of the Northeast as well, along with a small pocket in the Upper Midwest. [Climate Central]

Global warming could affect everything from national forests and grasslands’ vegetation to their stream flows, and the Forest Service has a comprehensive plan to deal with it. [Herald and News]

Retail giant Walmart said it plans to install solar panels on top of about half of its roughly 50 Massachusetts stores as early as August as part of an expansion of solar power in the state. [Boston Globe]

Long-running arguments over who needs to do what to stop the planet from overheating are back in focus this week as rich and poor countries meet in Bonn, Germany, to resume talks on a new global climate treaty. [Associated Press]

An Australian university has embarked upon an ambitious project – hailed as the first of its kind in the world – to simulate how the environment would cope with runaway climate change. [Guardian]

Mexico, the world’s 14th biggest economy, still punches well below its weight in terms of wind energy, ranking 24th on the planet in installed capacity last year, according to the Global Wind Energy Council. But the market is growing fast. [Reuters]

ClimateWire published a truly amazing story about Heartland-Gate Friday, “For Heartland board, failed climate attack was a surprise.”

On the surface, it is a CYA story where members of the Board assert they did not know in advance about Heartland’s now widely condemned campaign to compare climate science believers and reporters to mass ‘murderers and madmen’.

But what the story actually does is confirm that the Board stands behind Heartland’s ongoing smear campaign — since Heartland hasn’t backed off any of its hate speech or apologized for the original ad.

I should say the remaining Board, because as the story notes:

Another director, Robert Lamendola, resigned last Friday because of the ad, according to sources. He’s a senior adviser for Renaissance Reinsurance, which terminated its relationship with Heartland over the billboard after giving the organization $407,000 during the past two years.

Every other insurance company and trade group supporting Heartland also cut ties with the group….

Indeed, we learned last week that the insurers expressed “disgust and shock” over the campaign. And just this afternoon, news broke that Eli Lilly, BB&T and Pepsi will no longer support the Heartland Institute. That brings the number of companies dropping Heartland to 11. According to Forecast the Facts, more than 150,000 citizens have weighed in against the organization’s messaging strategy.

So while most folks are abandoning Heartland or condemning its actions, here’s what we learn about the Board:

According to three people with knowledge of Heartland’s campaign, the surprise ad comparing Unabomber Ted Kaczynski to advocates of reducing greenhouse gases prompted a sudden conference call last Friday between the board and the group’s president, Joe Bast. The call occurred hours after the electronic billboard became active Thursday afternoon. The ad was canceled before rush hour Friday.

One director on the 14-member board disassociated himself from the failed campaign when asked whether he was comfortable with the message of the highway advertisement….

“Since the billboard thing happened, we’re on the same page moving forward,” said the board member. “Whatever Heartland is saying at this point, I think we’re all in concert with.”

Wow!

The remaining Board is on the same page with “whatever Heartland is saying at this point.” That’s really a bombshell because Heartland’s website makes clear:

1. Heartland refuses to apologize for the billboards.
2. Heartland is saying now exactly what they said before the billboard was taken down — some of the most extreme speech ever seen from a global warming denial group, including this absurd assertion, “the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”

Since the Board has apparently endorsed it, Heartland’s detailed rationalization for its campaign is worth quoting at length once again since it is so self-discrediting for the whole organization:

Read more

Apparently, bad ideas are contagious.

On the heels of a disastrous billboard campaign from the Heartland Institute that linked people who understand climate change with serial killers, an organization in Colorado has released its own tasteless campaign comparing President Obama and other Colorado politicians with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The billboard campaign was rolled out at 28 locations around Colorado by the conservative organization Compass Colorado.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims that the Holocaust was a myth, believes that the U.S. government perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, and has bragged about how effective Iran is in recruiting suicide bombers who “enlighten our future.”

President Obama has said that “this country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. A strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.”

According to Compass Colorado, that belief in clean energy is egregious enough to compare Obama to a dictator who promotes mass murder.

When the Heartland Institute attempted the same kind of campaign, the fallout was swift — with 11 corporations pulling support from the organization. Ahmadinejad doesn’t have the same kind of lurid cultural relevance that Ted Kaczynski or Charles Manson have in America, but the attempt at shock value is no different than Heartland’s.

And just like Heartland, Compass Colorado is patting itself on the back for such a ridiculous campaign.

Who decided this was a good idea?

by Sarah Murdock

At a time when 80 percent of Americans believe Congress is doing a poor job, there is an opportunity for lawmakers to take action on an issue that would impact many millions of citizens: flood insurance reform.

And, here’s the amazing part — it’s got major bipartisan support. Like football.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes flood insurance available to coastal and inland property owners for homes and buildings that are mapped in areas of flood risk. It’s a critical service.

Unfortunately, the Program in its current form is fatally flawed. It actually encourages increased risks to people, property and nature.

This flaw is due in large part to subsidized flood insurance that pays people to rebuild again and again in areas where floods and hurricanes put communities, first responders and properties at risk.

To make matters worse, development in flood risk areas has the perverse effect of destroying natural systems that would otherwise provide flood and storm protection to people and properties.

Then there’s the fact that the current program does not emphasize “preventative-care” solutions that would greatly reduce the cost of flood damage during extreme events. One recent study estimated that for every dollar spent on flood preparedness, five dollars are saved when disaster strikes.

But, here’s perhaps the biggest problem: in a world of increasing severe and erratic storms and floods, as well as sea level rise, these issues are beginning to have more devastating consequences. In 2011 alone, there were 58 Federal flood disaster declarations, covering 33 different states, costing over $8 billion and causing 113 deaths. Both the costs and the number of deaths exceeded the 30–year averages.

What’s more, in a report commissioned by FEMA, findings indicate that there will be a 40 to 45 percent increase over the next century in U.S. areas susceptible to flooding.

Enter The Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2011.

The bill passed the House last summer by a vote of 406-22 and the Senate banking committee unanimously last fall. It needs to pass the full Senate by May 31^st, before the flood insurance program is scheduled to sunset altogether.

Last week, I testified before the Senate banking committee on why The Nature Conservancy – and the diverse Smarter Safer coalition, of which we are a member – supports the legislation, with a focus on fixing the fatal flaw of the current Program.

The bill will eliminate subsidized rates, allow rates to be adjusted to reflect true risk, and take into account future impacts from increased storms and floods. Currently there are 1.2 million properties (20% of the Program) that are charged premiums well below the value of the insured liability.

This pricing fix works in tandem with the bill’s increased focus on flood mitigation – the “preventative care” strategies I mentioned earlier.

The traditional approach to flood protection has been to rely on dams and levees to contain floodwaters, and to build sea walls and bulkheads in coastal areas. While this “grey” infrastructure plays an important role in helping to secure our communities, it’s expensive to build and maintain. What’s more, an over-reliance on it in the U.S. in the past hundred years has encouraged extensive land development in areas particularly susceptible to floods and storms – and catastrophic damage when infrastructure fails. And, fail it has. Look no further than Hurricane Katrina.

Instead of relying solely on grey infrastructure, the bill will make it easier for flood insurance grant programs to fund oftentimes cheaper and more flexible “green infrastructure” solutions – such as restoring coastal wetlands, oyster reefs, and barrier beaches, as well as restoring river connectivity and restoring forests to ensure sufficient floodplain areas.

The reality is, we’ll need both green and grey solutions. But, right now, most planners don’t think beyond the grey stuff.

And, natural systems give us benefits we can’t get from a wall or levee, such as cleaner water, protection against erosion, more recreation opportunities, and food (bringing back fish and shellfish populations, and maintaining agricultural production).

It’s good policy, and it’s a hit on both sides of the aisle. Time for the Senate to take it to the finish line.

For folks interested in showing support for the legislation, check out our Use Your Outside Voice site.

Sarah Murdock is a senior policy advisor at The Nature Conservancy.

by Richard W. Caperton

Who will take radical steps to stop the transition to clean energy?  That’s the question that underlies “Blowout,” the new book by retired Senator Byron Dorgan and David Hagberg.  Because the answer is so straightforward (hint: it’s the oil companies), Dorgan and Hagberg have taken the unprecedented step of addressing the issue in a blood-soaked action thriller, instead of the typical non-fiction format we’re all so used to.

“Blowout” is based around a fictional clean energy research and development facility in North Dakota, which is very close to making a revolutionary technological breakthrough.  Just as the final critical test approaches, the facility is attacked by a relatively incompetent gang of militia members, who have been hired by unknown outside interests.  This attack, the resulting manhunt, and various other criminal hijinks make up the bulk of the plot.

Along the way, we’re treated to scenes of extreme violence in various North Dakota locations, as well as Venezuela and Washington, DC.  There are also numerous detailed mentions of all kinds of exotic military firearms.  For example, one character was previously shot with “a Barrett A2 .50 caliber U.S. sniper rifle,” and in another scene someone uses a “Knight PDW 6x35mm compact automatic carbine,” which presumably possesses an outstanding amount of killing power.

I’m glad they went the action route, because it’s actually pretty fun.  We’ve all read the formulaic clean energy book, which goes something like this: we’re in an energy crisis, the solution is X, but X has some small problems holding it back, so we need a broad national commitment, which will be a win-win situation for everyone involved.  “Blowout” is something entirely different: we’re in an energy crisis, the solution is an insanely complicated new technology that I can’t even begin to understand, developing this technology costs hundreds of billions of dollars, and special interests will go to unimaginable lengths to stop the research, including killing dozens of innocent civilians with weapons originally designed for big game hunting.

Unfortunately, this may be a case where fiction is stranger than truth.  As Joe Romm has written countless times on this very blog, the solutions to the climate crisis are almost certainly the technologies we have with us today.  Here’s how a character describes the new technology under development in “Blowout”:

We’re going to inject three classes of microbes directly into the coal seam [the facility] is sitting atop.  One breaks down the long hydrocarbons in the deposit.  The second converts those into organic acids and alcohols.  And the third – methanogens – feed on the first two and convert them to methane that we pump to the surface and burn as fuel to power our turbines.

Right.  Wouldn’t it be easier just to build a lot of existing renewable energy?  And cheaper?  In fact, it would be cheaper.  The new technology in “Blowout” cost the government $650 billion, but extending the production tax credit for wind would cost less than one percent of that.

Now, it would obviously be a mistake to read too much into a work of fiction, especially one that has two authors.  That said, it’s tempting to use this book to try to understand why Senator Dorgan wasn’t a bigger supporter of taking action on climate change when he was in the Senate.  The obvious connection is that one of the bad guys in “Blowout” is a derivatives trader, which aligns perfectly with this quote from Dorgan from a December 2009 press release: ““I don’t support offering Wall Street a trillion-dollar cap and trade carbon securities market so the investment banks and speculators can trade securities and establish speculative prices that tell the American people how much their energy is going to cost.”

Dorgan’s tepid support for addressing climate change is especially frustrating when you consider it in the context of the first sentences of “Blowout”:

We may have already reached the carbon dioxide tipping point, which in effect means that even in the planet reduced its carbon dioxide emission to zero, it may take a thousand years for Earth to heal itself. As dramatic as this might sound, the situation is closer to reality than even Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was.  Of course, doing nothing is not an option.

We have to act now, to at least mitigate the effects of the poisons we are pumping into the air.

That just about perfectly sums up the situation.  One hopes that Senator Dorgan will remember this when thinking about what to work on in the real world, and not just his nascent career as a novelist.

Richard W. Caperton is the Director of Clean Energy Investments at the Center for American Progress.

by Mindy Lubber, via Ceres

When your company’s job is to keep the lights on, you have to be cautious about risk. Power has to be there when people need it.

Risk comes in different forms, and there are times when business as usual becomes a risk in itself. America’s electric utilities are approaching just such a moment.

Across the country, a generation of power plants and transmission systems is aging and needs to be replaced. At the same time, rules on pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are tightening. Clean energy technologies are getting cheaper and gaining market share. These shifts coincide with record spending: Utilities are expected to make $2 trillion in capital investments over the next 20 years – about double their recent spending rate.

How to move forward in this complex, risky environment? That’s the subject of a new report from Ceres, Practicing Risk-Aware Electricity Regulation: What Every State Regulator Needs to Know.

The industry experts who wrote the report analyzed a range of investment decisions utilities could make over the next two decades – decisions that will determine which utilities prosper and how their shareholders, ratepayers, and the wider society will be affected. The economic as well as environmental stakes are high.

Read more

The Obama campaign and the super PAC Priorities USA recently fired back at Americans for Prosperity, highlighting Mitt Romney’s ties to a funding source of $18.5 million in energy attack ads: Koch Industries.

Koch Industries has produced its own video claiming it doesn’t deserve the label of a secretive Big Oil corporation.

Shockingly, Factcheck.org and the Washington Post have taken up Koch’s argument. Factcheck.org wrote that despite Koch’s $100 billion revenue, the corporation’s diverse holdings mean “it is hardly in the league of the truly ‘big oil’companies.” The Washington Post Factchecker took the same angle.

While it’s true the most profitable U.S. corporations — ExxonMobil and Chevron — are larger than Koch, using this standard to claim the company isn’t Big Oil is incorrect. Let’s take a look at some key facts:

• The Koch brothers’ net worth tops $50 billion and they have pledged to spend $60 million to defeat President Barack Obama, according to the Huffington Post.
• The Koch PAC is the largest oil and gas contributor — donating more than even ExxonMobil — spending over $1 million in each of the last two cycles. This cycle, it has spent almost $750,000. Koch Industries sends 90 percent of these contributions to Republicans.
• It’s the fourth-largest lobbyist in the oil and gas industry, spending $2,300,000 so far in 2012 and over $8 million in 2011.
• Koch Industries emits over 300 million tons of greenhouse gases a year, based on the assumption that Koch emits the same amount of greenhouse pollution per billion dollars in revenue as Exxon and Chevron.
• Flint Hills Resources, a Koch subsidiary, processes 300 million barrels of oil a year. This company is responsible for up to five percent of the U.S. 7-gigaton carbon footprint.
• Koch says itself that the company is on par with big banks and is among the world’s top five oil speculators.

• Koch is a major player in driving up gas prices through speculation, hurting American consumers. ThinkProgress reported that in 2008, Koch leased four supertankers to hold oil in the Gulf, leading to a gas price increase anywhere from 20 to 40 cents a gallon at the time.
• According to Inside Climate News, Koch industries “has touched virtually every aspect of the tar sands industry since the company established a toehold in Canada more than 50 years ago.” It is active in mining Canada’s tar sands and exporting to the U.S., and is active in Canadian politics, with half a million dollars in donations between 2007-2010.
• As reporters consider these factors, Koch has been widely reported as a Big Oil corporation by media outlets like Politico, Forbes, NPR, and Politifact.

It is absurd to say Koch Industries is not Big Oil when it plays such a hugely influential role in a wide variety of fossil fuel markets — all while flexing its power to protect the oil industry’s special interests.

Power generation from coal is falling quickly. According to new figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal made up 36 percent of U.S. electricity in the first quarter of 2012 — down from 44.6 percent in the first quarter of 2011.

That stunning drop, which represented almost a 20 percent decline in coal generation over the last year, was primarily due to low natural gas prices. As EIA explains, natural gas generation will climb steadily this year, while coal will see a double-digit drop by the end of 2012:

Natural‐gas‐fired generation continues to expand its share of total generation at the expense of coal‐fired generation. During the first quarter of 2012, natural gas accounted for 28.7 percent of total generation compared with 20.7 percent during the same quarter last year. In contrast, coal’s share of total generation declined from 44.6 percent to 36.0 percent over the same period.

Prices for natural gas delivered to the electric power industry fell by 7.5 percent in 2011, which contributed to a significant increase in the share of natural‐gas‐fired generation. EIA expects this trend to continue in 2012, with electric power sector coal consumption falling by 14 percent. Natural gas in the electric power sector grows by almost 21 percent in 2012, primarily driven by the increasing relative cost advantages of natural gas over coal for power generation in some regions.

EIA also projects that coal production at mines will fall by more than 10 percent this year. However, with prices falling due to an increase in secondary inventories, the agency predicts that domestic consumption may rise by just over 1 percent next year.

The U.S. coal industry if facing major headwinds. The current drop in generation is mostly due to competition from natural gas. But there are other factors that will assist in pushing coal out of the electricity mix: An aging fleet of plants, cost-competitive renewables, new clean air regulations, and a strong anti-coal movement are working together to reduce the attractiveness of coal. Since 2010, plant operators have announced 106 retirements of coal facilities — representing 13 percent of the U.S. fleet, according to the Sierra Club.

The continued decline in domestic coal generation is good news for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions from the fossil fuel sector are expected to decline by almost 3 percent this year — continuing the 1.9 percent decrease seen in 2011. Emissions from natural gas will rise by 5.5 percent, while emissions from coal will fall by almost 12 percent.

A round-up of the top climate and energy news. Please post other links below.

The flagship project of a hoped-for but not-yet-realized “nuclear renaissance,” the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors under construction near Augusta, Ga., may cost about $900 million more than had been estimated, the Southern Company said in a filing this week with the Securities and Exchange Commission. [New York Times]

In the foothills of the Andes, in the Sierra Piura region of Peru, the problems faced by coffee farmers are clear. [Guardian]

Although farmers know better than ever how to grow food, global warming may indirectly affect our diet by diminishing the amount of available nutrients. [Jerusalem Post]

Are you and your neighbors breathing healthy air? The American Lung Association has released their State Of The Air 2012 report, detailing cities with the least and most air pollution in America. Each city is ranked by ozone pollution, short-term particle pollution, and year-long particle pollution. [Huffington Post]

Coastal erosion, a natural effect of Matunuck’s direct exposure to the elements in an area prone to sand-sucking northeasters, has shrunk parts of the beach to less than a dozen feet during high tide, not only imperiling seafront structures like the Ocean Mist but also threatening the only road that residents can use to get in and out of here, as well as the water line beneath it that serves over 1,600 customers. [New York Times]

A decade at war has made Marines mean on the battlefield. Now to get lean, the Corps is becoming Green. Marines have become exceedingly lethal, but all that deadly precision comes with a heavy burden — a lot of fuel and extra batteries to carry, said Col. Bob Charette, director of Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office. [Jacksonville Daily News]

B.C. Premier Christy Clark is prepared to alter her government’s strict climate-change targets to pave the way for her plan to create a liquefied natural gas industry in the province. [Globe and Mail]

A recent study on the distribution of 11,000 marine species in relation to water temperature supports that the current human-induced climate change has huge consequences for our marine ecosystems. And a 15°C change is not even necessary. [Business Mirror]

The response by NOAA’s Martin Hoerling to James Hansen’s recent op-ed does not reflect the scientific literature.

I’m traveling, so let me focus first on Hoerling’s incorrect statements — posted on this blog and DotEarth — about drought. As readers know, the journal Nature asked me to write a Comment piece on the threat posed by drought after they read one of my posts examining the latest science on prolonged drought and “Dust-Bowlification.”

The Nature article, which is basically a review of recent drought literature, is here (subs. req’d). Most of the text is here.

The research I did for that article — along with the comments of the expert reviewers I sent it to — is why I know Hoerling is quite wrong. Hoerling begins by quoting Hansen’s recent New York Times Op-Ed piece:

“Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.”

Hoerling then asserts:

He doesn’t define “several decades,” but a reasonable assumption is that he refers to a period from today through mid-century. I am unaware of any projection for “semi-permanent” drought in this time frame over the expansive region of the Central Great Plains. He implies the drought will be due to a lack of rain (except for the brief, and ineffective downpours)….

But facts should, and do, matter to some. The vision of a Midwest Dustbowl is a scary one, and the author appears intent to instill fear rather than reason.

That’s a very serious attack on Hansen — if it were true. But it isn’t, and it should be retracted.

The fact is that the recent literature examining warming-driven drought in America could not be clearer in warning about a “semi-permanent” (or worse) drought in both the South West and the Central Great Plains and “More and more of the Midwest.” Here are two studies that lay things out starkly:

• Aiguo Dai of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “Drought under global warming: a review” (2010)
• Michael Wehner et al., “Projections of Future Drought in the Continental United States and Mexico” (2011)

I would also add the 2010, Environmental Research Letters article “Characterizing changes in drought risk for the United States from climate change.”

And that’s not even counting the Journal of Geophysical Research study that Hansen himself co-authored in 1990, “Potential evapotranspiration and the likelihood of future drought,” which projected that severe to extreme drought in the United States, then occurring every 20 years or so, could become an every-other-year phenomenon by mid-century.

As an important aside, contrary to what Hoerling states, Hansen was not implying the drought will be due to lack of rain (by itself). Everyone seriously writing about warming-driven drought knows we are talking about a combination of factors, ones that I laid out in my Nature article:

Precipitation patterns are expected to shift, expanding the dry subtropics. What precipitation there is will probably come in extreme deluges, resulting in runoff rather than drought alleviation. Warming causes greater evaporation and, once the ground is dry, the Sun’s energy goes into baking the soil, leading to a further increase in air temperature. That is why, for instance, so many temperature records were set for the United States in the 1930s Dust Bowl; and why, in 2011, drought-stricken Texas saw the hottest summer ever recorded for a US state. Finally, many regions are expected to see earlier snowmelt, so less water will be stored on mountain tops for the summer dry season.

Obviously, since Hansen coauthored an article titled, “Potential evapotranspiration and the likelihood of future drought,” we know he understands the drought conditions are driven by more than precipitation changes. The whole point of that 1990 paper was to examine the impact of warming-driven evaporation on soil moisture and drought.

It is quite surprising that Hoerling doesn’t appear to know the drought literature given that, as Revkin notes, he “runs an effort by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to assess the forces contributing to extreme weather events!”

Hoerling says it is reasonable to assume Hansen means “a period from today through mid-century.” Hansen says the “semi-permanent drought” will develop “over the next several decades.” That would clearly seem to mean that these conditions will evolve by just after mid-century, the 2050s and 2060s. This is also the first period of time where aggressive action to reduce emissions today could substantially change the projected climate.

Dai’s analysis does indeed project drought conditions over the Great Plains and Midwest. He is in the process of revising his analysis, but the figure below (which had been his 2030s projection in his original version) is a rough representation of where his analysis projects things will be in Hansen’s time frame for the U.S.

The PDSI [Palmer Drought Severity Index] in the Great Plains during the Dust Bowl apparently spiked very briefly to -6, but otherwise rarely exceeded -3 for the decade (see here).

And this isn’t just Dai’s finding. Michael Wehner et al. find the drying has the same signature. The study is behind a firewall, but you can see a PDF of a  PowerPoint presentation here.

Of course, just because several models project this future doesn’t make it a certainty.  As I note in the article, “drought models need to be improved. They successfully chart the hydrological changes seen in the US Southwest and the drying seen at the global level⁷, but regional predictions can be disturbingly variable.”

On the other hand, these models most certainly are not the worst-case scenario. Dai is modeling A1B (720 ppm), whereas we are on track for worse than that. A  plausible worst-case scenario is here (and below):  Royal Society Special Issue on Global Warming Details ‘Hellish Vision’ of 7°F (4°C) World — Which We May Face in the 2060s!

Hansen’s use of the term “Dust Bowl” is justified since that is the term widely used in the drought literature (see below). We are talking conditions that become as bad as the original Dust Bowl by mid-century and then get much, much worse for a long, long time. The Nature editors made repeated use of the term “Dust-Bowlification,” and I was particularly delighted that one of the leading experts in the field that I sent the piece to, Jonathan Overpeck, also liked the term.

Indeed, Hoerling’s critique is really only about whether the semi-permanent drought conditions will extend outside the U.S. SW to include most of Northern U.S. Great Plains. The literature is very clear that the Southwest is very likely headed for Dust Bowl conditions:

Read more

by Dominique Browning

I’ve spent the last nine months giving birth to a new organization—really an act of incredible team gestation—called Moms Clean Air Force. Labor took place on my kitchen table—and before I start hyperventilating, I’ll leave off the birth metaphors. Let me just say this work has been some of the most exhilarating I’ve ever done.

I’ve been meeting moms from across the country. Moms—Republicans, Democrats, Independents and Apoliticals, at least until now—who are fed up with the status quo. Sick of dollars first, babies second. Moms in Alabama who don’t want to make a choice between jobs and their children’s health. Moms in Ohio who are alarmed by research linking behavioral issues to air pollution.  Moms in Arizona making emergency room runs with asthmatic children. Moms in Pennsylvania outraged that the shale rush is fouling their skies. Moms in Michigan who want their teenagers to have job opportunities in clean energy—without having to leave their home state. Moms in New Hampshire who just want to eat tuna fish again. Moms in Dallas who are worried about that brown bubble of smog over their homes.

We are moms who don’t believe the science deniers. We deny that the situation is hopeless. We can do something about climate change. We respect science—and doctors—and we listen when they warn us of danger. We know exactly who is going to be around to suffer the impacts of extreme weather that will make today’s headlines about floods, droughts and heat waves look quaint. Our little ones. The loves of our lives. We know that the crazy stuff we are seeing today is just the beginning of global warming. And it is already bad enough.

Photo: Sean Suddes/Sierra Club

Is all this terrifying? Overwhelming? You bet. Moms today feel like they have to be EPA, FDA, and USDA rolled into one. But we know it is impossible to “shop” our way out of pollution problems. There isn’t an air filter on the market that can protect us. Money can buy the right to pollute. But money cannot buy clean air.

Being a good mom means being an engaged citizen. The only way to get strong regulations is to demand them. Moms hear “pollution regulations” and we think, Good: Protection. That’s why, Republicans and Democrats, we have rallied around Administrator Lisa Jackson—the mom of a severely asthmatic son. She has done a historic job of enhancing the Clean Air Act.  Her work will have a long legacy. We’re grateful for her vision and courage.

Do politicians really want to make their mothers angry? Most of us aren’t marching in the streets or getting arrested—yet. But we’re signing petitions, writing letters, meeting with our political representatives, and letting them know: Listen to your mothers. We share the air. Stop polluting it.

Mother Love is the original renewable. The supply is endless.  We hope Washington gets a charge out of it.

Dominique Browning is the Senior Director of Moms Clean Air Force.

by Michael Conathan

This past week, the New York Times Magazine concluded an essay contest challenging its readers to make the argument that eating meat is ethical. One of my colleagues, Andrew Light, was a judge of the submitted entries, and his involvement got me thinking about these issues in the context of our favorite oceanic protein.

More than one-third of the people on the planet rely on seafood to provide at least 15 percent of their protein intake. In 2000 the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization found that 1 billion people rely on fish as their main source of protein. Increasingly, we’re getting that fish from aquaculture operations, also known as fish farms. This should come as no surprise—after all, virtually every ounce of nonfish sustenance that passes our lips is cultivated, not harvested from the wild. But is aquaculture the cleaner operation? Is it more ethical?

In his defense of meat, the Times’ contest winner, farmworker Jay Bost, points out that, “A well-managed, free-ranged cow is able to turn the sunlight captured by plants into condensed calories and protein with the aid of the microorganisms in its gut. Sun > diverse plants > cow > human. This in a larger ethical view looks much cleaner than the fossil-fuel-soaked scheme of tractor-tilled field > irrigated soy monoculture > tractor harvest > processing > tofu > shipping > human.”

Bost references ecologist Aldo Leopold’s land ethic to bolster his case: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” At first glance, such a philosophy would seem to favor a reduction or elimination of wild fisheries and a move toward properly managed aquaculture operations—an admittedly nebulous target given the legitimate questions that go along with fish farming, including concerns about pollution, location, and sources of feed stock.

Wild harvest in general is less efficient than cultivation, which is why we have given up on the former in the case of virtually every other food product. Yet the biology of fish has raised technological barriers to domestication or cultivation. It’s tough to shepherd a creature when the two of you don’t breathe the same way. As a result, fishing has become more than just a source of protein—it’s a way of life. So to extend the use of Leopod’s ethic, as we value biodiversity and ecosystem health, we must also conserve the “integrity, stability, and beauty” of our socioeconomic structure.

As a society, we value our fishing industry. We want fishing to remain part of the fabric of our coastal heritage and culture. Bost’s point—that in many cases an animal can turn solar energy into people food far more efficiently than an anthropogenic process can—certainly applies to a fish as readily as to a cow. For all the efficiencies aquaculture can provide, there is still a great deal of intrinsic value in wild fisheries.

Some supporters of the commercial fishing industry decry aquaculture as an intruder in their markets with the potential to drive down demand for their fish and corrupt the public perception of their product’s quality. This message is delivered with particular enthusiasm from Alaska, where, it should be noted, almost half of the state’s famed commercial salmon began its life in hatcheries—though once released in rivers and streams, the fish spend the bulk of their lives in the ocean and so are considered wild.

Read more