Gristmill

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:

A zero-emission bus tours California, Toyota flirts with ethanol, and more green auto news

Thursday in San Francisco, it was easier to get an electric bus than an electric car. Proterra, a commercial hybrid- and electric-vehicle manufacturer in Golden, Colo., finished its weeklong California clean bus tour in the city by the bay. The sleek EcoRide BE35 climbed the hills of San Francisco, flaunting its environmental and fiscal charms […]

Improving on the ambiguity of privately owned public spaces

This article is part of a collaboration with Planetizen, the web’s leading resource for the urban planning, design, and development community. Cities are filled with spaces intended for the public — but many of them are clearly owned and operated by the private sector. Though cities bend rules to get these spaces built, the public […]

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.

Money for fossil fuel research in the stimulus could still go to coal

Preliminary analysis of the stimulus deal from Congress available yesterday indicated that funding for “clean coal” had been cut from the package altogether. But it appears that funding in the bill could still go to carbon capture and sequestration projects through the package, which the House approved Friday afternoon. The summary of the bill [PDF] […]

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:

The Fish and Wildlife Service once again hearts critters

Sign No. 1 that the critter-huggers are now in charge at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Agreeing to consider whether they should protect the “boulder bunny” under the Endangered Species Act because climate change is disrupting its Alpine habitat. Sign No. 2: Valentine’s e-cards …

Looking at climate change from a regional perspective

"Climate change poses a tremendous threat to the Puget Sound and Georgia Basin area."

Clear. Concise. Depressing. The quote comes from Patty Glick, senior global warming specialist at the National Wildlife Federation, but it was echoed in the words of all the speakers at the three climate-change panels held Wednesday at the Puget Sound Georgia Basin Ecosystem Conference in Seattle.

Scientists of varying disciplines from all over the region shared their research and forecasts for the future. But one big question for the day arose: How do we take all of this climate change science -- which is primarily based on predictions that are global in scale -- and translate that into local management decisions?