Uncategorized

Conservative columnist lies to millions of people, again, ho hum

George Will is supposedly one of the reality-based conservatives, who eschews the willful know-nothingism of some of his ideological co-travelers. Yet today, as he has many times before, he uses his perch on the Washington Post editorial page to lie to readers and reduce their knowledge of the facts.

It's hard to believe, but he wheels out the "scientists said there would be global cooling" myth again. See it refuted here in our How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide. Or see Brad Plumer for yet another refutation.

But at this point it seems futile to refute it yet again. The question here is not about the facts, but about sociocultural norms. Why is Will permitted to lie to millions of readers every week? At what point do the editors of the Washington Post feel that it's their job to step in and stop him from misleading people? Is there any such point? Is there anything Will could say that would cross the line?

Addendum: Meanwhile, segregated over in the "green" section of the paper: "Scientists: Pace of Climate Change Exceeds Estimates." And so it goes.

Grid reliability statistics look good, if you don't consider the flaws

Refashioning our electric grid to move generation closer to load creates a host of benefits. (Two-hundred and seven, according to Amory Lovins.) Among them is an increase in grid reliability, since generation closer to load necessarily reduces the need for transmission to connect remote generators to that load. Carnegie-Mellon has estimated that we could free up something like 15 percent of our total grid capacity if we moved to a locally generated system.

But you wouldn't know that from the way some utilities calculate reliability statistics. The Columbus Dispatch reports that in spite of a wave of recent outages due to winds knocking out power lines, reliability statistics still look surprisingly good. Why?

The reliability statistics themselves are controversial. Major storms, such as the September wind storm that knocked out power to 700,000 AEP customers, are not included on the list. Utility officials contend, and regulators agree, that major storms would cause breakdowns in even the best systems, and are therefore not helpful in measuring overall reliability.

That means the September wind storm, the January ice storm, and this week's high winds will not be considered when the PUCO puts together reliability statistics for AEP.

"For analysis purposes, you've got to remove the anomalies," said Selwyn Dias, vice president for regulatory and finance at AEP Ohio.

So rather than build a more reliable grid, we will simply assume the grid we have -- and its innate exposure to weather-related outages -- is immutable.

Tomorrow: I'm favored to be the top pick in the upcoming NBA draft, once you remove the anomalies of my height, 30-percent shooting percentage, and lack of credible crossover move.

Superb NYT story captures both coal's peril and the barriers to its elimination

"Is America Ready to Quit Coal?"

So asks a must-read story by Melanie Warner in the Sunday New York Times.

And so, slowly, fitfully, that possibility -- the possibility not just of cleaning up coal or using less coal but eliminating coal -- creeps its way into the American public consciousness.

The headline isn't the only thing worth celebrating. I would quibble with some details, but overall this piece comes closer than anything I've ever seen in the national media to getting the big story right.

It starts off by describing what too few people understand: coal is in a perilous position. Already building new coal plants is extremely expensive; any new regulations -- on CO2, MTR mining, coal ash, you name it -- could put new plants permanently off the table.

But the more interesting parts, to me, are those that describe the barriers in the way of quitting coal. Here are the big three, in order of importance:

The fear that that there's no alternative.

"[W]hether renewables can keep the lights on and our iPods charged remains an open question."

Loss aversion is, in your author's humble opinion, at the core of the coal fight. If the American people can be convinced an alternative is possible, they will not accept dirty, unhealthy energy, any more than they accept tainted water or cars without seat belts. But the fear of letting go of the devil they know, the fear of jumping into the unknown, is incredibly potent.

"Charging iPods" trivializes it; electricity provides basic sustenance, shelter, and comfort for families. For children. This is primal lizard-brain stuff. You do not mess with it lightly. Those looking to dethrone coal in the public imagination would do well to focus most of their firepower not on coal itself but on establishing the credibility and reliability of the renewables/efficiency alternative. It can't be cutting edge and whizbang forever. It's got to be safe for soccer moms in suburban Atlanta.

The fear of rising prices.

Climate Central takes on Iowa corn

Climate Central bills itself as "a think tank with a production studio." This is what they do:

Using both staff experts and an extended blue ribbon network of scientists, Climate Central assesses and synthesizes the latest science, technology, and policy proposals. Our experienced communications team turns that information into creative, easily understood, and graphically rich pieces for print, television and the web.

They've got some serious names behind the project, including John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco before they were snapped up by the Obama administration. (Full disclosure: Grist board member Ben Strauss is a member of the CC team.)

CC just got up and running recently -- the full site doesn't debut until Spring -- but it's already turning out some great stuff. The latest is "Iowa: Corn and Climate," a video that recently aired on PBS's The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Here it is (starts about a minute in):

The coolest thing, though, is that the video comes with an annotated transcript that takes virtually every sentence and substantiates it with a relevant bit of science, news report, or infographic. You get the public-friendly video and the wonk-friendly reference work, all in one package. Not bad.

CC aims to be an impeccably credible source of information on a highly contested set of subjects. It looks like they're off to a great start.

Seattle Greendrinkers show Grist some love

Seattle, we love you! And we love that you showed us the love Tuesday night at Greendrinks.

Our event at the LEED-designed Veer Lofts in South Lake Union drew some 450 Greendrinkers excited about catching up with old friends, mingling with new ones, and sharing green ideas and good times with all.

Generous donations from Pizza Fusion, Sierra Nevada Brewing Company, Snoqualmie Wines, Guayaki Teas, Clif Bar, Essential Baking Company, and Full Circle Farm provided sustainable (and delectable) sustenance -- and kept the crowd buzzing.

We also had photographers roaming the scene, asking Greendrinkers to hold up signs showing what it is they love. We got responses ranging from bikes, to national parks, to "snuggles." Check out the photos for yourself in our Flickr slideshow (below). Then share your own by joining our Grist Local Flickr group.

And if you wish that you'd known a little sooner about this great green event in Seattle, subscribe to our Grist Local: Seattle email list to receive weekly news about green goings-on in the Emerald City.

Uber-denier Inhofe misquotes Hadley, gives big wet Valentine's kiss to Pielke

Once again, the office of Denier-in-Chief (DIC) Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oil) has put out a press release riddled with misstatements. This one has a twist, though: a Valentine's love letter to denier-eq. Roger Pielke, Jr.

The DIC's last two releases were notable for their outright lies and distortions [see here and here.]

So it's no surprise that the DIC's pre-Valentine's Day missive is one big disinformation-fest, starting with the headline:

Climate of Change: UK Met Office Issues 'Blistering Attack on Scientific Colleagues' For 'Apocalyptic Climate Predictions'

You will not be surprised to learn that the U.K. Met Office issued no attack on scientific colleagues for "apocalyptic climate predictions." Dr. Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office did write a column for the U.K.'s Guardian that begins:

News headlines vie for attention and it is easy for scientists to grab this attention by linking climate change to the latest extreme weather event or apocalyptic prediction. But in doing so, the public perception of climate change can be distorted. The reality is that extreme events arise when natural variations in the weather and climate combine with long-term climate change. This message is more difficult to get heard. Scientists and journalists need to find ways to help to make this clear without the wider audience switching off.

That is really all Pope has to say about "apocalyptic predictions." She doesn't actually criticize any predictions that I would consider to be apocalyptic.

Indeed, Pope herself is the principal source of the major recent apocalyptic prediction made by climate scientists -- ironically in a December article in the Guardian, "Met Office warn of 'catastrophic' rise in temperature" (see here):

In a worst-case scenario, where no action is taken to check the rise in Greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures would most likely rise by more than 5°C by the end of the century.

You want an apocalyptic prediction? Try 5-7°C warming this century. So the implication of the DIC's press release and headline -- that Pope thinks the business as usual emissions trajectory the DIC wants to keep us on is not apocalyptic -- is quite, quite wrong.

The only prediction she talks about that comes close to being apocalyptic is:

Clinton appointee upholds destruction of Appalachia

Today the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, overturned a federal judge's 2007 ruling to require greater environmental review of permits for mountaintop removal in West Virginia.

The decision, while devastating for Appalachia's mountain communities and waterways, should be no shocker; this was the fourth time in eight years that the 4th Circuit Court has thrown out federal court rulings that sought to tighten mountaintop removal standards in West Virginia.

Charleston Gazette reporter Ken Ward, Jr. is closely following the story and its ramifications on his blog. The Associated Press also has the story.

The 2-1 majority opinion was written by Clinton-appointee Roger L. Gregory, the first African American justice to be named to the 4th Circuit Court. Gregory wrote:

In making this determination, we must first appreciate the statutory tightrope that the Corps walks in its permitting decisions. In passing the CWA, Congress aimed "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (2000). But, in passing SMCRA, Congress sought to "strike a balance between protection of the environment and agricultural productivity and the Nation's need for coal as an essential source of energy." 30 U.S.C. § 1202(f)(2000).

As the dissenting voice, Judge M. Blane Michael from West Virginia concluded:

Today's decision will have far-reaching consequences for the environment of Appalachia. It is not disputed that the impact of filling valleys and headwater streams is irreversible or that headwater streams provide crucial ecosystem functions. Further, the cumulative effects of the permitted fill activities on local streams and watersheds are considerable. By failing to require the Corps to undertake a meaningful assessment of the functions of the aquatic resources being destroyed and by allowing the Corps to proceed instead with a one-to-one mitigation that takes no account of lost stream function, this court risks significant harm to the affected watersheds and water resources.

Is Obama up to the challenge on climate and the economy, or will he disappoint like Blair?

It already seems so long ago, when, like you, we anxious eco-Brits spent a tense few minutes on Jan. 20 deconstructing Obama's inauguration speech.

There was plenty to cheer: "The ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet." (Well spotted!) "Without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control." (Bloody good point!) "We will restore science to its rightful place." (Yes! Stuff the creationist nutters!) "The success of our economy always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart." (Ooh! A coded death knell for growth-driven economics!)

And some food for thought: "Our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year." (Hmm. Not much then in the case of GM, Ford, et al?) "We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together." (Not much poetry in suburban light-rail systems, I guess, but can you at least do the roads last?) "We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars" (and trains!). "We will not apologize for our way of life." (That's fine, but don't let it happen again!)

By the end, our mood was rather chipper. Swept along by the euphoria, we felt the difference in ourselves. Even those who remembered the morning of May 2, 1997, when Tony Blair surfed a similar wave into power in the U.K. -- and the disappointment that seeped in over the ensuing years as he turned into Dubya's best mate and a safe pair of hands for the same old elites -- couldn't quite keep the spring out of our step.

Three weeks on, some observers here have already decided the honeymoon -- if there ever was one -- is over, and President Barack Obama, up to his neck in the proverbial, is going to need an awful lot of substance to go with his undeniable style if he is to avoid becoming America's Tony Blair.

Most economists agree on the economics of climate change mitigation

If you read only one article this week -- nay, this month -- make it this one from the increasingly indispensable Eric Pooley: "Surprise -- Economists Agree! A consensus is emerging about the costs of containing climate change. So why is no one writing that?"

The point is that despite what you read in the media, there is in fact a fairly broad consensus among economists about the costs of climate change mitigation. Namely:

1. The costs of inaction are far higher than the costs of action, and
2. the costs of action are fairly modest -- between 0.5 and 1 percent of GDP by 2030, a far, far smaller impact than the current economic crisis is having.

This is why, in the words of economist Robert Stavins, "There is general consensus among economists and policy analysts that a market-based policy instrument targeting CO2 emissions ... should be a central element of any domestic climate policy."

Why is the media so bad at conveying this consensus? That's what Pooley investigated in more detail in his discussion paper [PDF], which Joe Romm covered here and which is also an absolute must-read. The reasons are basically twofold:

Our weekly look at the heroes and villains of the climate fight

Climate kudos this week go to House and Senate negotiators for cutting out billions of dollars in pork for coal and nuclear from the economic stimulus bill, while managing to protect most of the funding for good, green projects. For once, the legislative sausage-making process did not utterly disappoint.

We'd also like to give a shout-out this week to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for shelving the Bush administration's plan to poke drill bits into every available orifice. Now that's change we Ken believe in!

A third green thumbs-up goes to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack for inaugurating the People's Garden on a plot of pavement at USDA headquarters this week, and announcing his goal of creating community gardens at every USDA facility. The gardens are going to "promote 'going green' concepts" like landscaping and building design to retain water, roof gardens for energy efficiency, native plantings, and conservation practices. You're kinda growing on us, Tom ...

... but you've still got some work to do. Vilsack also gets the finger for pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to require more ethanol in gasoline, just as a coalition of environmental groups unveiled a report detailing how the U.S. biofuel program "exacerbates global warming."

Another big honking finger goes to Dick Saslaw, the majority leader of the Virginia state Senate. Saslaw, a Democrat, this week cast the tie-breaking vote against a bill that would have required utilities to invest in energy-efficiency measures. The legislation would have saved Virginians up to $15 billion on their electric bills by the year 2025 and created thousands of jobs in the process, supporters said. Shocker: Saslaw has received $85,000 in campaign contributions from the coal-huggers at Dominion Power since 2004, more than any other legislator.

Got your own thoughts on who should get the climate finger this week? Put 'em in the comments section below.