Awesome Photo: Predatory Coral Eats Jellyfish

Coral seems so peaceful and passive, rippling in the currents of the sea in all its colorful beauty. It’s easy to forget that it’s actually an animal and not a plant. But, perhaps this photo will remind you – captured on a dive in Israel in March, it’s the first documentation of coral feeding on a jellyfish.

From BBC News:

Ocean currents and nutrients had created a seasonal bloom of the jellyfish (Aurelia aurita) and many surrounded the reef in which the team were diving.

It was then they saw the strange behaviour.

“During the survey we were amazed to notice some mushroom corals actively feeding on the moon jellyfish,” says Ada Alamaru, a member of the research team who is doing her PhD in marine biology supervised by Prof Yossi Loya at Tel Aviv University, Israel.

“We couldn’t believe our eyes when we saw it,” Ms Alamaru says.

Researchers believe that coral’s ability to survive on a variety of food sources may give it an advantage in a changing world – and it’s going to need it. Reefs are increasingly threatened by climate change, particularly increased air and sea surface temperatures, rises in sea level, changes in weather patterns and changes in seawater chemistry.

But acidification of the world’s oceans from human CO2 emissions is an extremely formidable opponent for coral to face, and it’s hard to say right now whether they’ll make it through the fight.

Link [BBC News]

John Kerry Calls Out Climate Change Denier B.S.

A hack of an “environmental scholar” working for an organization that consistently seeks to undermine efforts to fight global warming got schooled on climate change policy by Senator John Kerry during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on November 10th. Kerry rebuked Green’s comments for a solid five minutes, leaving a floundering Green unable to defend his views as anything other than his own personal opinion.

Kerry: “You may know something that thousands of other scientists don’t. They won a Nobel Prize. You and I didn’t.”

Ken Green’s title as ‘resident environmental scholar’ at the American Enterprise Institute may seem to indicate that he has a clue what he’s talking about. But who, exactly, are Green and this Institute?

From a 2007 Treehugger article:

The American Enterprise Institute, according to the Guardian, was called out in February for ” offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, “to undermine the IPCC report. .” AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green made the $10,000 offer “to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere,” in a letter describing the IPCC as “resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent.” They noted also that AEI “has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI’s board of trustees.”

It just goes to show who these people really are – and how easy it is for them to misrepresent themselves to climate change skeptics as “experts”. What a joke.

Link [Treehugger]

Fat, Angry Captain Planet Goes to Copenhagen

What has Captain Planet been doing in all these long years since he was the earth’s premier protector? Apparently, he’s been breathing in a whole lot of nasty toxic air and feeding on the same plastic that’s killing all those albatross chicks. He’s pissed, and headed to Copenhagen to demand action.

“I can barely breathe this air and my stomach is full of plastic! It’s time for you guys to pull together and stop polluting the earth!”

This totally awesome cartoon was created by an Australian animator named Chris who calls himself ‘Lord Zorgatron’. He’s known as ‘SexualLobster’ on YouTube. Check out more of his work at GreasyMoose.com.

Link [GreasyMoose.com] via [Ecorazzi]

Run, Kids, the Carbon Monster is Coming!

How do you get adults to care about the environment? How about scaring their kids shitless with the specter of a ‘carbon monster’ in the sky that’s going to get them if their parents don’t act against global warming? That’s the tact the British government has chosen to take with an ad that seeks to change skeptics’ minds about climate change, but has only angered viewers who saw it during prime-time television broadcasts.

The intentions behind the ad are understandable. It’s a response to a recent survey in Britain showing that 52% of people don’t think they’ll be personally affected by climate change, but 74% would change their lifestyles if they knew that climate change would have a serious affect on the lives of their children.

From the Times Online:

Ministers sanctioned the campaign because of concern that scepticism about climate change was making it harder to introduce carbon-reducing policies such as higher energy bills.

The advertisement attempts to make adults feel guilty about their legacy to their children. It features a father telling his daughter a bedtime story of “a very very strange” world with “horrible consequences” for today’s children.

The storybook shows a British town deep under water, with people and animals drowning.

Carbon dioxide is depicted as rising in clouds of black soot from cars and homes, including from a woman’s hairdryer. The soot gathers into a jagged-toothed monster menacing the town.

Watch the ad over at the Times Online.

Predictably, global warming skeptics are having a field day with this one, calling it propaganda. People in Britain who saw it on TV were so angry about it that the ad has been pulled and is currently being investigated.

But one fumbled ad doesn’t mean that people should forget or ignore the harsh reality. Children will, indeed, be the victims of climate change if we don’t act – in fact, the Telegraph reports that 250,000 children could die due to climate change next year and that number could rise to more than 400,000 annually by 2030.

Climate change is a real and pressing problem, and far too many people across the world are covering their eyes and plugging up their ears so they don’t have to deal with it.

Link [Times Online]

Saving Forests Five Times More Effective than Carbon Capture

The best way to fight against global warming isn’t expensive, potentially ecologically disruptive carbon capture methods. It’s saving the forests that we already have, which act as massive carbon sinks, protecting the planet against catastrophic climate change.

According to a new report released by WWF Sweden, world leaders have got to join together in an international agreement to halt forest loss as a highly cost effective measure on climate change.

From Panda.org:

“Sweden should follow the examples set by its northern neighbors in developing systems to halt deforestation,” said WWF CEO General Lasse Gustavsson.. “One Swedish krona to stem deforestation results in the same emissions reductions as five kronor for the controversial carbon capture and storage technique,”

Gold in Green Forests, a report issued today by WWF-Sweden, says that next to energy efficiency halting forest loss and degradation is the most cost-effective method for mitigating climate change.

The annual loss of natural forests in developing countries is equivalent to one third of Sweden’s surface area. Forest fires, the conversion of forests to agricultural land and the cultivation of energy crops are responsible for the high rate of forest loss.

A program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation, known as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) is currently being discussed in the negotiations for a global climate deal. REDD aims to make it worthwhile for developing countries to maintain their forests, as opposed to cutting them down.

Preventing deforestation should be among our first lines of defense against climate change. It definitely makes sense financially. The trick is getting nations like Indonesia – which is cutting its forests down at an alarming rate to make room for lucrative palm oil plantations – to agree to the program.

The whole report is available over at Panda.org.

Link [Panda.org]
Photo credit: Flickr user zoutedrop

Climate Change Costs: 25 Million More Starving Children by 2050

Conservatives love to whine about perceived costs of climate legislation, but they’re clearly more worried about their own bottom lines than about the true costs of catastrophic climate change. A new report issued by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) states that the world will have 25 million more starving children by the year 2050 as climate change causes food shortages and soaring food costs.

From The Guardian:

The grim scenario is the first to gauge the effects of climate change on the world’s food supply by combining climate and agricultural models.

“The food price crisis of last year really was a wake-up call to a lot of people that we are going to have 50% more people on the surface of the Earth by 2050,” said Gerald Nelson, the lead author of the report. “Meeting those demands for food coming out of population growth is going to be a huge challenge – even without climate change.”

After several years in which development aid has been diverted away from rural areas, the report called for $7bn a year for crop research, and investment in irrigation and rural infrastructure to help farmers adjust to a warming climate. “Continuing the business-as-usual approach will almost certainly guarantee disastrous consequences,” said Nelson.

The G20 industrialised nations last week began discussing how to invest some $20bn pledged for food security earlier this year.

Some regions of the world outlined in the report are already showing signs of vulnerability because of changing rainfall patterns and drought linked to climate change.

And this is the great irony about religious conservatives in particular: they’re so worked up over abortion, yet they don’t seem to give a rat’s ass about the people who already live on our planet. Twenty five million starving children in addition to the millions that already exist – now that’s something to be angry about.

Link [The Guardian]
Photo credit: MiaFarrow.org

How to Live on Earth: Experts Suggest User’s Guide

When it comes to living in harmony with nature, we humans have repeatedly screwed up, big time. But there’s no instruction manual that explains exactly how we should do things so we don’t harm the earth – yet. 28 scientists have suggested nine key areas including freshwater use and chemical pollutants where governments could define limits to ensure a “safe operating space for humanity”.

From Reuters:

“Today we are clearly driving development in the world blindfolded,” Johan Rockstrom, leader of the study and director of the Stockholm Resilience Center at Stockholm University, told Reuters of a lack of international guidelines.

“We are not considering the risks that there are deep holes we can drive into,” he told Reuters. The call, for setting “planetary boundaries,” was published in Thursday’s edition of the journal Nature.

Rockstrom said there were signs human activities had already pushed the world into the danger zone because of global warming, a high rate of extinctions of animals and plants and pollution caused by nitrogen, mainly used in fertilizers.

Among limits, they suggested capping the percentage of global land area converted to cropland at 15 percent. At the moment, the percentage is 11.7 percent, they said.

Though conservatives are probably shrieking in terror at the idea of global guidelines for a range of human activities, such a ‘user’s guide’ would be extremely helpful in uniting people around the world with a common goal of keeping this planet a safe and healthy place to live. Imagine if world leaders had concocted such a guide back at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution – the world would probably be a much cleaner, healthier place today.

It would definitely have to be a group effort, however, without giving any one person or organization too much say in how the guidelines were developed. Otherwise, we could end up with another Bible on our hands (and Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, we sure as hell don’t need that.)

Link [Reuters]
Photo credit: Alan Dean/Woodley Wonderworks

GOP Politicians Parrot False Climate Bill Talking Points

What’s more important – actual facts, or talking points filled with false figures designed to knock down the competition at any cost? To the GOP, it’s clearly the latter. They’ve never been known for fighting fair, but in the past year or so the Republican Party has apparently decided that anything goes, with a series of jaw-droppingly dirty tactics centered upon outright lies and propaganda.

So, it’s not too surprising that eight GOP politicians are continuing to parrot talking points about the supposed costs of climate legislation, despite the fact that they’ve been repeatedly proven false. The $1,761 figure is an inflated estimate of the cost of a bill that was never even considered by Congress.

Hell, in the right-wing sphere, claims made on the news don’t have to have any basis in truth whatsoever. ThinkProgress has a great rundown on the process used to spread these false figures (via The Huffington Post):

STEP ONE: “News” generated by right-wing think tank.

STEP TWO: Right-wing print journalists write “breaking news” story.

STEP THREE: Promoted by Drudge, story repeated endlessly on right-wing blogs, Twitter, and talk radio.

STEP FOUR: Republican politicians, right-wing think tanks, and polluter front groups release statements of shock and outrage.

STEP FIVE: On Fox News, Glenn Beck calls President Obama a liar/socialist/Marxist/communist/fascist/racist.

Josh Nelson of EnviroKnow listed the many politicians who have repeated the false figure including Sen. Lamar Alexander, Sen. James Inhofe, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Rep. Roy Blunt, Rep. Fred Upton, Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, House Minority Leader John Boehner and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence. Check out the details at The Huffington Post – it’s truly sickening.

The GOP is happy to use any means necessary to protect their wealth and power against any perceived threat, real or imaginary. But who cares about climate change or health care as long as Republicans can keep their Hummers and McMansions?

Link [ThinkProgress] + [The Huffington Post]
Photo credit: Flickr user Ingrid Taylar

Arctic Record Proves Global Warming is Caused by Man

The Arctic’s geological record provides all the evidence we need that global warming is man’s doing, experts say. A closer look at the sediment timeline has shown that increased ice melt falls right in line with the birth of the Industrial Age, when those billowing clouds of greenhouse gases first started to flow from factory smokestacks.

From the LA Times:

For more than 2,000 years, a natural wobble in Earth’s axis has caused the Arctic region to move farther away from the sun during the region’s summer, reducing the amount of solar radiation it receives. The Arctic is now 600,000 miles farther from the sun than it was in AD 1, and temperatures there should have fallen a little more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since then.

Instead, the region has warmed 2.2 degrees since 1900 alone, and the decade from 1998 to 2008 was the warmest in two millenniums, according to a team headed by climatologist Darrell S. Kaufman of Northern Arizona University.

Not only was the last half-century the warmest of the last 2,000 years, “but it reversed the long-term, millennial-scale trend toward cooler temperatures,” Kaufman said.

The results seem to negate the primary argument of those who say the current warming of Earth is simply a natural variation, he said.

It’s not too difficult to understand the argument that people have against anthropomorphic global warming – that we, as humans, are simply too small and insignificant in the grand scheme of things to cause such changes in the earth and its natural balance. After all, nature is quite an amazing force.

But, to believe that we aren’t capable of causing global warming is to ignore the massive destruction we have unleashed upon this planet as we rose to the top of the food chain and began industrializing. We have changed the atmosphere. We have destroyed ecosystems and decimated much of the rainforest that would otherwise be helping to balance the greenhouse gases we’re pumping into the air.

It’s real, it’s happening, and we did it. Now we have to find a way to make up for it.

Link [LA Times]

Photo credit: Flickr user A6U571N

EPA Close to Declaring CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says that CO2 will be declared a dangerous pollutant within a few months. This move could help push climate change legislation through Congress at a pace slightly faster than that of a melting iceberg.

A formal “endangerment finding” would force the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act regardless of whether Congress passes a final climate change bill. Top senators have recently declared that they plan to delay introducing legislation that would cap carbon emissions.

From SF Gate:

The EPA kick-started the regulatory process in April when it proposed declaring carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases as pollutants that jeopardize the public health and welfare. EPA scientists believe the greenhouse gases contribute to global warming by trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.

The EPA can formalize the finding anytime, now that it has closed a 60-day public comment period that netted more than 300,000 responses.

President Obama and Jackson have said they would prefer that Congress – rather than the EPA – take the lead in implementing new greenhouse gas limits. Businesses and energy industry leaders also have largely favored congressional action over EPA-imposed limits, because they believe lawmakers are better positioned to combine economic safeguards with any new carbon cap.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases qualified as pollutants and could be regulated, if the government were to determine that they threatened the public.

No doubt, this news will immediately cause opponents of climate change action to howl about CO2 being the source of life on this planet, and predict fines for exhaling. “Everybody hold your breath!” Har har har.

Common sense should tell these people that such a fear is absurd, but you know what they say about common sense. Climate change deniers don’t have any.

Link [SF Gate]

Global Warming Could Cause Tilt in Earth’s Axis

Oceans warmed by the rise in greenhouse gas levels could cause the Earth’s axis to tilt, according to a new study by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Researchers say the tilt would be significant enough to create a large shift in the distribution of the Earth’s mass, especially when combined with the tilt being caused by the melting of Greenland’s ice.

From New Scientist:

The researchers modelled the changes that would occur if moderate projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a doubling of carbon dioxide levels between 2000 and 2100 – were to become reality.

The team found that as the oceans warm and expand, more water will be pushed up and onto the Earth’s shallower ocean shelves. Over the next century, the subtle effect is expected to cause the northern pole of Earth’s spin axis to shift by roughly 1.5 centimetres per year in the direction of Alaska and Hawaii.

Luckily, the effect is expected to be relatively small, and shouldn’t induce any negative feedback in the planet’s climate. It just needs to be taken into account when interpreting shifts in Earth’s axis.

Still, this should be a strong message to those who still insist that we insignificant little humans can’t affect the planet we live on to a great extent. We may be relatively unimportant in the scheme of things, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t capable of causing some serious changes.

Link [New Scientist]
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

New Zealand Prime Minister to Green Actress: Don’t Quit Your Day Job

A New Zealand actress best known for her Oscar-nominated performance in ‘Whale Rider’ has been publicly mocked by the country’s Prime Minister for her involvement in a Greenpeace campaign. Keisha Castle-Hughes is one of the celebrity faces of the ‘Sign On’ campaign, which is urging the New Zealand government to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2020.

PM John Key told a crowd of 500 at a business gathering, “My advice to Keisha is this: stick to acting.”

New Zealand’s Labour department is asking the Prime Minister to apologize for the remark.

From The National Business Review, via Ecorazzi:

In Parliament, Acting Prime Minister Bill English was questioned about the remark.

Labour’s Charles Chauvel asked: “Does the Prime Minister agree with Keisha Castle-Hughes that telling her to `stick to acting’ is really odd, given that he had previouslyencouraged her to make a submission to the Minister for Climate Change Issues on New Zealand’s pollution reduction target?”

[English] said an ad campaign did not replace serious analysis and a 40 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 would seriously hurt the economy and people’s livelihoods.

In a later statement Mr Chauvel said Mr Key should apologise.

“Young New Zealanders, whatever their profession, should never be discouraged from taking a stand on issues they feel passionately about and the Prime Minister’s decision to criticise the Kiwi actress for doing so to an overseas audience was a bad call.”

Castle-Hughes’ classy response was to offer to meet Mr. Key to discuss her concerns, saying that she knows a lot more about the issue than he realizes. Key has since agreed to a meeting.

The subject of celebrities speaking out about important issues is a tricky one. Obviously, no one is going to take Paris Hilton seriously if she suddenly makes demands about, say, food safety laws. But there are those celebrities who are passionate and knowledgeable about certain causes, and many an organization and campaign has received more funds and more exposure due to the participation of famous faces.

“If I’m going to put my name to a campaign as I’ve done with the Greenpeace Sign On campaign, I want to do more than read brochures and fact sheets. I want to see first-hand what I’m fighting for,” said Castle-Hughes. “I haven’t come out of the trip with the knowledge of a scientist, nor have I come out with all the answers on how to solve climate change, but I do have a stronger passion than ever before to see New Zealand do its fair share in this global crisis.”

Link [National Business Review] via [Ecorazzi]
Photo credit: Sign On Campaign

Lobbyist Group Forges Anti-Climate-Bill Letters, Then Lies About It

A couple weeks ago, The Huffington Post warned readers to be on the lookout for dirty tricks orchestrated by right-wing groups attempting to derail the climate bill. Sure enough, a Washington D.C. based lobbyist group got caught sending five forged letters purportedly from Hispanic voters and the NAACP to a congressman in the hopes that it would sway his vote.

It didn’t work. Congressman Tom Perriello of West Virginia voted in favor of the Waxman-Markey climate bill, and lobbyist group Bonner & Associates is taking the heat for its abhorrent tactics.

Congressman Ed Markey announced that he would hold an official House hearing into the forgeries, saying:

“This fraud on Congress shows that some opponents of clean energy have resorted to forgery and theft to block progress.  This is an appalling abuse, and Congressman Tom Perriello deserves great credit for seeing through it and casting a vote that will create clean energy jobs in Virginia and throughout the United States. I encourage all Members of Congress to be on the lookout for other suspicious and illegal materials. My Select Committee will immediately begin an investigation of the extent and scope of this activity.”

Not that Bonner & Associates are actually admitting any wrongdoing. The group blames a ‘temporary employee’ who supposedly sent out the letters unbeknownst to the rest of the firm.

Nice try, says The Huffington Post – Bonner has a history of tricking people into supporting their causes. HuffPo found a 2002 story by the Baltimore Sun, which called out another forgery in the group’s past:

Donna J. Stanley, director of Associated Black Charities, was ready to mobilize for political battle after she received a fax marked “urgent” this week.

The fax told her she needed to sign an attached petition “today” to prevent 600,000 of Maryland’s poor and disabled from losing access to affordable prescription drugs. The fax, sent to dozens of community leaders, had the markings of a grass-roots effort, including grammatical errors and a handwritten cover letter.

But the appeal was actually generated by a sophisticated Washington lobbying firm trying to defeat several bills before the General Assembly supported by advocates for the poor.

So, how’d they explain that one away? Jack Bonner said it was “a great exercise in the First Amendment”. Bonner & Associates had allied itself with a puppet group for the pharmaceutical industry, using the organization’s letterhead to fool legislators into thinking they were hearing legitimate concerns from voters.

Abolishing the practice of lobbying lawmakers, and imposing strict term limits on all politicians – wouldn’t that go a long way toward cleaning up our government? Lobbyists clearly have no scruples when it comes to getting favors for Big Oil, Big Pharma and other corporate entities intent on putting greed before the good of the earth and its people.

Link [The Huffington Post]

Register Now for 1Sky’s Midwest Leadership Summit

1Sky, a climate change advocacy group dedicated to encouraging federal action by 2010 to stem global warming, is holding a leadership summit on Saturday, August 1st and Sunday, August 2nd in Chicago.

The Summit will provide an opportunity to network with other volunteers making strides on this issue, receive a full policy briefing, and learn skills like how to communicate with elected leaders and reach out to the media: the nuts and bolts of organizing!

You can expect to come away from this weekend with new friends in the movement and a sense of empowerment and momentum to move your leaders and motivate your peers. You and 1Sky’s staff organizers, Climate Precinct Captains and other activist leaders will:

-Develop an Effective Message
-Learn the fundamentals of organizing and mobilizing
-Practice the Skills to Move the Message to Action
-Engage in the 1Sky Campaign

A small registration fee is required to cover costs of materials and services for the two days. You will receive an e-mail receipt to confirm your registration.

Sat-Sun, August 1st-2nd
9-6 on Sat, 9-3 on Sun
$35 for admission

Loyola University of Chicago
6430 N. Kenmore Avenue
Damen Hall
Chicago, IL 60626
Google Map | Campus Map (PDF)

Mountain Pine Beetles: Climate Change Disaster or Natural Phenomenon?

Are mountain pine beetles, which have ravaged western forests from the American southwest up into Canada, a global warming-caused disaster or a necessary natural phenomenon? Some scientists and environmentalists believe that the much-maligned beetles are actually playing a vital ecological role, similar to forest fires.

From The New York Times:

Dr. Gregg DeNitto, a forest health specialist with the Forest Service here, said the beetles were not “an exotic like the emerald ash bore.”

“This is a native insect in a native host, and these are normal biological processes that have happened for millennia,” Dr. DeNitto said.

Nothing can or should be done to halt the spread of the beetle, experts say. After they kill the mature trees, the soil becomes more fertile as nitrogen levels increase, sometimes tripling. The growth rate of surviving trees increases when the infestation ends. After dead trees fall over or burn, grass grows and provides elk habitat, and slightly more diverse forests rise up.

Beetles help by breaking down fallen trees, as well. “They digest the wood and are valuable in terms of nutrient recycling,” said Dr. Ken Raffa, an entomologist at the University of Wisconsin who studies the beetles. “And they introduce micro-organisms that further break down the wood.”

That’s not to say that the beetles aren’t causing major damage, with the potential to do even more harm in the future. Bark beetles have destroyed 8 million acres of forest, a level of destruction not seen in 150 years. Once killed and vacated by the beetles, affected trees are at high risk of burning so hot in places that the fires could bake the soil, causing severe erosion and runoff. Moreover, many of the affected trees provide sustenance that species like grizzly bears rely on for survival.

Even the scientists who insist that the infestations are part of a natural process admit that, well, okay, maybe it’s not entirely natural. Fire suppression efforts and large-scale clear cuts make forests more vulnerable.

Dr. Diana Six, who has studied the phenomenon and believes that it’s a natural cycle that must play its course, says there’s no foreseeable end to the outbreak and that if it’s climate driven, “we have to reverse climate change.”

Link [The New York Times]

Photo credit: West Coast Climate Equity

Climate Bill Faces Tough Battle in the Senate

As Greenpeace activists fight for action on global warming in Italy during the G8 Summit, climate change legislation here in the States faces an even tougher challenge. After passing in the House last week, President Obama’s climate change bill will likely see major erosion of environmental goals by the time the Senate is through with it.

Democrats had hoped to get some GOP support for the bill, but any votes coming from the other side of the aisle – and, indeed, from some lawmakers in their own party – would likely come at the expense of several key points in the bill.

From The Washington Post:

Senators will weigh a slew of potential compromises — everything from allowing more offshore drilling for oil and natural gas to increasing funding for nuclear energy — that they think would inch the package closer to passage. But environmental activists warn that the 1,400-page House version of the bill already includes so many giveaways to corporate America that more horse-trading in the Senate could lead them to oppose the final version.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) is counting on a handful of committee chairs to complete their portion of the legislation, which would create a cap-and-trade system, requiring major greenhouse gas emitters to either reduce their emissions or buy allowances.

As of today, Reid can count on the support of about 40 to 45 senators for that basic premise, according to aides and outside activists backing the legislation. Supporters are targeting a pool of roughly two dozen lawmakers — including about 15 of Reid’s Democrats — who will determine the legislation’s fate.

Democrats from the Rust Belt states of West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan are pushing for more incentives to help their depressed industries shift to alternative energy sources. The same senators also will likely want more funding for carbon capture and sequestration, a controversial and still-evolving technology described by its developers as “clean coal” but derided by many environmentalists. The technology is already slated for $10 billion in government-funded research in legislation that passed the House. A trio of Democrats from the Dakotas want more funding for wind power.

The only likely backers of the bill in the GOP are moderate Maine senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. In order to get more GOP support, the bill would have to include funding for nuclear options.

The bill is expected to hit the Senate floor sometime in the fall. By the time they’re done with it, however, the bill will likely be so diluted and full of concessions that environmentalists will want nothing to do with it.

This could get ugly. We envision Jerry Springer-like ‘Bitch, I’ll tear out yo weave’ cat fights over various interests – which would be fun, if it weren’t for the whole ‘the world is at stake’ thing.

Link [The Washington Post]

Who’s Who in Green: Dr. Heidi Cullen

“If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS (American Meteorological Society) shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval.” That’s the statement that climate scientist Dr. Heidi Cullen dared to make on her Weather Channel blog in December of 2006 that stirred up a firestorm over global warming science vs. politics.

It sounds like common sense to most, but Cullen – former host of Forecast Earth – quickly became a punching bag for angry conservatives who felt that she was disseminating liberal propaganda from what they said should be a politically neutral platform. However, Cullen feels strongly that global warming isn’t a political issue, it’s a scientific one. She was just doing her job.

Cullen, who was a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado before joining The Weather Channel in 2003 as a climate expert, is also a scientist with the Climate Central at Princeton University.

Cullen explained the controversy in a 2007 interview with The New York Times:

Last December, I wrote a blog about how reticent some broadcast meteorologists are about reporting on climate change. Meteorologists — they are the forecasters — have training in atmospheric science. Many are certified by the American Meteorological Society. I suggested there’s a disconnect when they use their A.M.S. seal for on-camera credibility and refuse to give viewers accurate information on climate. The society has a very clear statement saying that global warming is largely due to the burning of fossil fuels.

The next thing I knew, I was being denounced on the Web sites of Senator James Inhofe, Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh. The Weather Channel’s own Web site got about 4,000 e-mails in one day, mostly angry. Some went, ‘Listen here, weather girl, just give me my five-day forecast and shut up.’

Dr. Cullen’s stance took bravery and dedication, and we applaud her for standing her ground. This climate scientist knows her stuff, and she has certainly made an impact on the discussion about global warming’s role in our world.

Link [The New York Times]

Climate Bill Will Cost Consumers Way Less than Republicans Claim

Republicans have spent the last couple months circulating false claims about how much the House climate change bill would cost consumers, with estimates skyrocketing into the ridiculous. Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann recently claimed that the cost of climate action would be between $3,128 and $4,000 per household, and called for “armed and dangerous” opposition against climate action.

The Congressional Budget Office has put an end to all of the partisan speculation, confirming that climate change legislation would cost the average household a mere $175 a year by 2020, with the poorest 20% of households actually netting $40 annually.

From The Washington Post:

The costs would result from higher prices for carbon-based fuels, offset by a complex series of tax breaks and free allowances, new technologies and behavioral changes, and impacts on corporations and their profits.

The CBO, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, said it did not take into account any indirect benefits of slowing climate change, which are substantial but difficult to quantify.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman  Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the CBO report shows that his bill is “effective and affordable.”  Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), the bill’s lead co-sponsor, said it showed that the cost would be about the same as a postage stamp a day for the average household.

But Michael Steel, a spokesman for House  Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), said that the CBO analysts “got an unrealistically low number for cost per family because they didn’t factor in the millions of American jobs that will move overseas if the United States imposes this tax and our foreign competitors, like China and India, do not. I don’t know what color the sky is in a world where that won’t happen, but I’m sure you can ask the unicorns.”

Boehner’s office is hardly known for responsible and accurate number crunching. It was Boehner who initially claimed the $3,128 – $4,000 figure, citing some math done using a study by an MIT professor on a two-year-old cap and trade bill. But John Reilly, who conducted the study, says Boehner inflated the cost 10-fold by ignoring the offsetting benefits.

Eh, you know how it is. You can smell the desperation of Republican lawmakers from a mile away. They’ll do anything to con Americans into siding with them.

Link [The Washington Post]
Photo credit: [Jezebel] + [Esquire]

Climate Change Already Affecting America: Government Study

Climate change is already being felt across the United States, from the shifting migration pattern of butterflies to heavier downpours in the Midwest and East. At this point, no matter what we do, we’ll still continue to see some worsening effects in the coming years.

That’s the conclusion the United States Global Change Research Program, a joint scientific venture of 13 federal agencies and the White House, has reached after a study on natural and human-caused effects on the environment.

From The New York Times:

Some of the effects being seen today and cited in the report are familiar, like more powerful tropical storms and erosion of ocean coastlines caused by melting Arctic ice. The study also cites an increase in drought in the Southwest and more intense heat waves in the Northeast as a result of growing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other climate-altering gases in the atmosphere.

Reduced mountain snowpack means earlier melt-offs and reduced stream volumes across the West and Northwest, affecting residential and agricultural water supplies, habitats for spawning fish and reduced hydroelectric power generation, the study found.

But the speed and severity of these effects in the future are expressed with less certainty in the report and will depend to some extent on how quickly the United States and other nations move to reduce emissions.

Climate change skeptics will be singing a different tune when their own families and homes are being affected. Why is it that so many of us aren’t fired up to act until the damage is clear in our own backyards?

Link [The New York Times]
Photo credit: Flickr user Tidewater Muse

Next Page »