Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Oregonians, represented by some of the better politicians when it comes to energy and climate issues, were served up a rather distasteful stew of “Fair and Balanced” reporting by Scott Learn of The Oregonian the other day. In Dueling global warming studies heat up Oregon’s debate, Learn makes Faux News proud by presented a University of Oregon study and a fossil-fuel industry front-piece press release in a he-said, she-said type format. Note that title: “Dueling global warming studies …”

Take a look at definition of duel:

• A prearranged, formal combat between two persons, usually fought to settle a point of honor.
• A struggle for domination between two contending persons, groups, or ideas.

Well, as to honor, as discussed in Ah, the smell of western astroturf …, about the Western Business Roundtable is a fossil-fuel shill organization, staffed by people with long-running interesting connections. Jim Sims, the director, handled public relations for Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force and had ‘leadership’ roles with other astroturfing deception organizations (such as the Partnership For the West).

Thus, this must be more a question as to “domination” in either helping inform or deceive Oregonians as to the options heading into the future.

[Read more →]

President Barack Obama is about to make his first trip to another nation flying aboard Air Force One. Traveling north in wintry weather isn’t necessarily the most comfortable choice, but Canada is a critical US partner, meriting being on the top of the list for foreign travel for many reasons.

When it comes to Canadian-US relations, there is one issue that lies amid the tangled heart of the intertwined economic, energy, environmental, and climate challenges: Canadian Tar Sands.

Now roughly accounting for 10 percent of the United States’ oil imports, the processes for transforming tar sands into fuel for America’s gas guzzlers makes traditional oil production (even into ANWR) look benign in comparison. Devastating for the local (water, forests), regional (air pollution, bird), and global (GHG emissions) environment, Tar Sands is the wrong answer to North America’s energy challenges.

[Read more →]

Ed Milibrand, the UK Minister for the Department of Energy and Climate Change has announced a plan to give the United Kingdom’s 27 million homes a “sustainability makeover”. This 6.5+ billion pounds/year program will operate with three core elements:

• A universal, street by street, house by house approach with everyone offered comprehensive and free or low-cost advice.
• A plan for finance which all can have access to, linked to the house not the individual
• And a commitment to ensure fairness in what we deliver and the way we deliver it.

Street by street, providing paths for all residences to meet 21st century energy efficiency standards as part of the UK’s efforts to cut emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.

NOTE: This is a plan offered for three months of comments, not yet announced government policy.

[Read more →]

George Will’s Carbon Power Brokers stands in a long-line of examples of The Washington Post giving space to global warming denial disinformation. How bad was this one? Bad enough that one of the cited sources had to step up to respond to Will’s distortion on a holiday. Will wrote

As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

The Arctic Climate Research Center [9 April 09 CORRECTION: There is no such institution. I regret repeating George Will’s error] wrote

February 15, 2009

In an opinion piece by George Will published on February 15, 2009 in the Washington Post, George Will states “According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that The Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.

It is well past time for The Washington Post to apply fact-checking to its opinion pieces. More importantly, considering the state of the science and the long (documented) record of how poor media reporting is creating the false impression of a serious debate within the scientific community, even more serious standards should apply.

Will selectively quoting and misstated throughout this oped, sowing confusion on what is likely the most critical issue for the American Republic (and humanity) for the 21st Century. This is not the first Washington Post OPED of this vein. While perhaps beyond hope, we can wish it will be the last.

The Washington Post has a strong history of being “fair and balanced” within its pages when it comes to Global Warming issues, providing column inch after column inch of space to those actively seeking to deceive when it comes to what might (what likely will be) the most critical issue for this century. Without question, deniers / skeptics / delayers get far too much time and space in the OPED pages. Lomborg has been above the fold in Outlook. Multiple of these ‘regular’ columnists (Krauthammer / Samuelson / Will) have regularly launched inanities on the Post‘s pages. (See: TRADITION! WashPost Global Warming reporting Fair and Balanced.) Dana Milbank’s recent piece using “Goracle” time after time is an example where this travesty goes past the OPED section. Yes, yes, yes. There is “fair and balanced”. The Post‘s editorials, themselves, clearly state that Global Warming is real and that humanity is a driving factor. Yes, people like Bill McKibben and Al Gore have had editorials in the Post‘s opinion section. But, that is the point: there is, it seems, a striving for “fair and balanced” rather than accurate and truthful when it comes to Washington Post editorial decisions about articles and opinion pieces on climate issues.

Last June, Will-fully ignorant began:

We could easily ask: Washington Post editors, are you idiots? In publishing George F. Will’s “Carbon Power Brokers”, the Post‘s editorial board is complicit in the dissemination of deceptiveness and falsehoods surrounding policy making on what likely will be the most significant issue of the 21st century. The Post published this deceptive drivel the day before the US Senate begins debating the Lieberman-Warner Climate inSecurity Act. While, clearly, I have quite serious problems with the CiSA and do not support its passage, this debate and discussion should be on the basis of fact and truth, rather then deceit and truthiness.

Well, yet again, the Washington Post has chosen to demonstrate its devotion to Faux News’ deceptive motto in publishing deceptive truthiness on its OPED pages when it comes to climate change even while reporting in the news section some rather alarming news in the same domain.

[Read more →]

Dr Vicky Pope, the head of climate change advice at the Met Office Hadley Centre, wrote an opinion piece for the Guardian. Scientists must rein in misleading climate change claims

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.

Pope is absolutely accurate that this is a complex situation, difficult to explain, “difficult to get heard”. However, rather than challenging bad reporting on global warming impacts or simply not even suggesting that global warming has a relationship to severe weather events/situations, it is sad that Pope has chosen to use 15 minutes of fame to attack those trying to raise the alarm about global warming’s quite serious implications and the need for action as some equal to global warming deniers in their distortion of the science. The fact is that, almost without exception, the changes that we have actually seen over the past twenty years have outpaced the predictions from climate scientists. If anyone had been stating, 15 years ago, that we would have seen 10,000s die in a European heat wave, the massive heat wave and fires in Australia, Hurricane Katrina’s wrath (well, that was predicted), the extent of Arctic ice retreat, how far north birds have shifted, insect-infested boreal forests, etc, there seems no question that Pope would have called them ‘alarmists’ or distorting the science. And now?

[Read more →]

Well, not exactly, but birds are heading north for the ‘summer’ of Global Warming. The Audobon Society just released a report, Birds and Climate Change: Ecological Disruption in Motion (pdf),

Analysis of four decades of Christmas Bird Count observations reveal that birds seen in North America during the first weeks of winter have moved dramatically northward—toward colder latitudes—over the past four decades. Significant northward movement occurred among 58% of the observed species—177 of 305. More than 60 moved in excess of 100 miles north, while the average distance moved by all studied species—including those that did not reflect the trend—was 35 miles northward.

There was also movement inland, from warmer coastal states into areas not long accustomed to winter temperatures suitable for their new arrivals.

The extreme case: the Purple Finch, which used to celebrate the holidays in Springfield, Missouri, and now can be found around Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

[Read more →]

Just a little while ago, the White House held a ‘progressive media and bloggers teleconference’ with Jared Bernstein, Chief Economist for the Vice President. As a quick reminder, Jared is one of the bloggers that have become “former bloggers” by transitioning into the Obama Administration.

Not surprisingly, Bernstein’s call focused on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, which has just passed through the Conference Committee as a $789 billion package, incorporating some of the good ideas from the White House and the House, and the bad ideas from the Senate.

NOTE: The Bernstein photo is from a Drinking Liberally event …

When it comes to things from the House bill that were left out from the overall bill, like school construction, my question: “While aware of the need to pass this bill, we should recognize that many high-value elements of the House bill were stripped in the conference committee. Are you already looking ahead, working on trying to get these good elements passed.” To that, Bernstein had this comment:

My understanding from conversations with some of the opponents were not they were against things like school construction, but that they did not feel it appropriate such long-term projects should be in a stimulus package.

Clearly, one speaking from the Administration needs to be cautious and aware of the politics. In this case, that sort of money would have had real stimulative impact, enabling public school systems to pursue construction and renovation projects (and, hopefully, green schools) that they are currently putting on hold to cut current expenses (e.g., to shed jobs as well).

But, Bernstein suggested that there can be reason for hope:

My view is that no windows are closed in this regard.

And, in response to a later question pushing on family planning funding and the economic value of this.

I am not specifying any particular element in terms of funding. Some of the things came out of the plan because people had a reasonable argument that the programs didn’t fit into a stimulus package. But, without speaking to a specific program, we will be revisiting good ideas that did not get funded to see what should be put forward.

To begin the call, Bernstein laid out the urgency of the situation:

• January 2009: 600,000 jobs lost, the worst in over 3 decades
• Nov and Dec 08 were almost as bad
• Nov 08 through Jan 09: nearly 2 million jobs lost
• There is a very serious acceleration of job losses.

We all (or should) know this, that the situation is quite serious. But, as Jared said, “such numbers seem antiseptic” and then talked to the reality of people facing real struggles in the real world. “There were lots of middle class families struggling when the economy was expanding, now it is contracting.”

He emphasized, to answer the right, it seems, that “90 percent of the jobs will be created in the private sector”.

—–

One question (Matt Cooper, TPM) turned to the issue of the bank bailout, whether the stimulus package could be effective without the bank bailout also moving forward.

Bernstein:

Absolutely, the stimulus package will help in the way that I said … its nto rocket science … If you put out a contract for repairing a bridge, it will create jobs.

The issue is the multiplier effect, the full potential impact of the stimulus for improving the economy can’t take hold if credit isn’t flowing.

To use a medical analogy, the Recovery Act gets the heart beating again. The bank bill will clean out the arteries.

John Aravosis
asked a question focused on how salary limits when it comes to tax cuts works when it comes to quite expensive areas, like New York, where the average cost of living (and salaries) might be far different.

Bernstein Answer:

Very interesting question, but there is no rigorous, BLS-blessed metric for the cost-of-living differentials between differing areas. But, I could see this being a valuable thing to look to do for Government programs going into the future. … I looked at this when I was in the think tank world, have to be clear, however, that I am no longer in the think tank world …

Oh, the painful transition from free-thinking academe to governance.

A comment responding to MB

Meteor Blades (Daily Kos) asked the following question of me:

what’s your take on how well green infrastructure did in the ARRA? Is the total anywhere near what is needed, in your view?

Well, MB, to start with, haven’t seen the package that came out of the conference committee but, based on the limited reporting (and Bernstein’s comments), I am not holding my breath in expectation on being thrilled with the results. The AMT tax adjustment ($70 billion) stayed in, with the overall bill being cut in cost. That meant needing to “find” funding to pay for those increased tax cuts. Thus, cuts to help to local government and elimination of funding for schools.

In addition, more importantly, the original House bill was inadequate without enough focus on paths to stimulate the economy today that would also strengthen the economy into the future, while cutting our fossil fuel addiction, helping cut global warming emissions, and strengthen our social fabric. Even the House bill fell far short of what could (and should) have been. Compromising away from that bill to the “moderates” in the Senate? Sigh …

Now, hopefully the Administration (President Obama) has learned a quick (very expensive!) lesson: don’t go to the table already compromising. Make the other side do something to earn your compromise. Thus, perhaps the original bill should have had five percent tax cuts with Obama ‘willing’ to compromise to 20 or 25 percent. Then, when the R House members didn’t vote for the bill, President Obama could have said: “I gave them $150 billion and they still won’t vote for it. They lost the election and they seek to roadblock dealing with this crisis.” Again, hopefully, this is a lesson learned. Don’t we all wish that it didn’t cost some $300 or so billion in tax cuts (actually, tax increases on the unborn) to drive that lesson home?

A concluding thought …

This was a quality call, with quality questions. (Unlike what a Washington Post reporter might have done, no one asked “what are the economic impacts of professional baseball steriod use?”) Like President Obama calling on a journalist from the Huffington Post in press conference, this call is a clear indication that the Obama White House recognizes that “traditional media” doesn’t, necessarily, translate to “mainstream media”. Speaking with online journalists and bloggers will be, it seems clear, part of how the Obama Administration will communicate with the American people.

PS: Baratunde at Jack & Jill Politics did a better job capturing the Q&A.
Not surprisingly, Bernstein’s call focused on an the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, which has just passed through the Conference Committee as a $789 billion package, incorporating some of the good ideas from the White House and the House, and the bad ideas from the Senate.

When it comes to things from the House left out, like school construction, my question: “While aware of the need to pass this bill, we should recognize that many high-value elements of the House bill were stripped in the conference committee. Are you already looking ahead, working on trying to get these good elements passed.” Tot that, Bernstein had this comment:

My understanding from conversations with some of the opponents were not they were against things like school construction, but that they did not feel it appropriate such long-term projects should be in a stimulus package.

Clearly, one speaking from the Administration needs to be cautious and aware of the politics. In this case, that sort of money would have had real stimulative impact, enabling public school systems to pursue construction and renovation projects (and, hopefully, green schools) that they are currently putting on hold to cut current expenses (e.g., to shed jobs as well).

But, Bernstein suggested that there can be reason for hope:

My view is that no windows are closed in this regard.

And, in response to a later question pushing on family planning funding and the economic value of this.

I am not specifying any particular element in terms of funding. Some of the things came out of the plan because people had a reasonable argument that the programs didn’t fit into a stimulus package. But, without speaking to a specific program, we will revisiting good ideas that did not get funded to see what should be put forward.

[Read more →]

Joe Romm, in his book Hell and High Water, had this to say about why we should be cautious about meteorologists talking about Global Warming/Catastrophic Climate Change.

Asking a meteorologist to explain the cause of recent extreme weather is like asking your family doctor what the chances are for an avian flu pandemic in the next few years or asking a Midwest sheriff about the prospects of nuclear terrorism. The answer might be interesting, but it wouldn’t be one I’d stake my family’s life on. (p. 225)

Yet, meteorologists are the easiest for journalists to get ahold of and they sound so authoritative. But, just like Romm, I don’t want to stake my (or your) family’s life on their views.

Sadly, WUSA’s Tupper Schott provided a textbook example to prove Romm right.
[Read more →]

A guest post from Gooch who took the time (and emotion) to provide a comprehensive and impressively polite reproach to a denier’s disingenuous argument. To the extent that someone is an ‘honest’ skeptic, this provides the substance to change a mind that is ‘open’ to truth.  Enjoy … and learn.

I got an email from my Aunt last Thursday:

Dear [Gooch] – I got this e-mail from Bob [xxx], who is in our small group at church.  He is the son of Bob & Betsy [xxx] who were active in the Congregational Church in Bethany.  I wondered what you thought about the ideas expressed in the article below.
Love, Aunt Ellen
PS – hope all is well in Portland!

…

I took the bait.

[Read more →]