Until 5 March 2012, the National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy is open for public comment.

This is a long document. The executive summary. is after the fold.
[Read more →]

With all due respect, Mr. President, you misstated “the defining issue of our time …”

I do hope that the United States returns to the idyllic notion of a past defined by your grandparents in

a story of success that every American had a chance to share – the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

This, however, is not “the defining issue …”

No, Mr. President, as important as that American dream is, “the defining issue of our time” is existential on a far more fundamental level:

Will we or will we not turn aside from our reckless path toward catastrophic climate chaos which represents an existential threat to American security as (probably more) serious as that created by the Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal?

Without addressing climate change in an urgent and serious manner, the resulting catastrophic climate chaos will trash any concept of realizing success on “the defining issue” you laid out this evening …
[Read more →]

Honestly, the State of the Union (SOTU) has never been a time which I’ve seen as ‘getting drunk’ time. However, there has grown over the years a State of the Union drinking games tradition. And, well, 2012 builds on that tradition.

Let’s take a look, for a moment, at the President’s forshadowing of tonight’s SOTU address.

If one follows State of the Union 2012 drinking game (drinkinggame.us), then the expectation should be — considering the foreshadowing — that one will wake up with a serious headache tomorrow and little recollection of the Republican “response” to the President’s speech (with key messages coordinated / facilitated by representatives of foreign fossil fuel interests).

Now, when I conceive this tradition against what is projected for the State of the Union address, my game is simpler: will the President speech give rise for celebration as to a serious battle to address the most critical issues our nation faces to provide for prosperity and security in the decades to come?

Yes, I agree, the 1% dominance imperils our nation. Yes, I agree, the economic hardships on 10s of millions of Americans while Wall Street spews out $177 billion in bonuses is horrendous. Yes, I agree …

However, the most critical issue is to figure out how to navigate the Perfect Storm of economic havoc, energy supply challenges, and environmental limitations. These must be addressed as an integrated package because addressing them in isolation from each other will lead to (is leading to) catastrophe.

Yes, at the end of the day, it does come down to Global Warming and Peak Oil.

My prediction, amid discussion of ‘homegrown energy’, boosting U.S. oil production, and developing ‘alternatives’ (sigh, likely to again include “clean coal” and “natural gas”), neither term will come up.

And, well, those are my two ‘drinking game’ terms … and, thus, I expect to remain sober this evening.

PS: A bottle will be close at hand … Now, there is at least some reason to hope that I am wrong. As per EENEWS,

Energy and environmental insiders on and off Capitol Hill said yesterday that they were unsure whether Obama would again spend a significant amount of time calling on Congress to promote a clean energy standard that would require 80 percent of U.S. power to come from low-carbon sources by 2035.

E.g., it is possible that President Obama will forcefully lay a case for ending subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, will call for carbon and other pollutants to be made ‘internal’ to pricing, and … And, if so, then the bottle will not remain full.

FOLLOW ECO ISSUES AT SOTU with #ecosotu
[Read more →]

Ta-Nehisi Coates’ discussion of confronting Civil War ‘Comfortable History’ from such ‘sound Historians’ as Ron Paul makes interesting reading. About the asymmetric nature of this conflict, Coates concludes:

The problem debating this sort of thing is the side of dishonesty and intellectual laziness is at an advantage. It will likely take more effort for me to compose this post, then it took for Ron Paul to stand before the Confederate Flag and offer his thin gruel of history. Those attempting to practice history need not only gather facts, but seek out facts that might contradict the facts they like, and then gather more facts of context to see what it all means.

But Comfortable History is asymmetrical warfare it needs only a smattering of facts, and need not guard against a lack of context, presentism, or other facts that might undermine its arguments. Instead it breezily proceeds through hypotheticals and abstract thought experiments which somehow satisfy our desire to be in possession of a dissident intellect. Comfortable History is like the computer virus that poses as the shield—it positions the espouser as a brave truth-teller, even as it infects us with lies. […]

Reading this struck a nerve … a direct nerve … that goes beyond the challenges in “Thinking in Time” but to a dominant element in 21st century American political, media, and general culture:

The truthiness-laden soundbyte and tweet are heard round the world … and the truthtellers are relegating to chasing after truthiness …

It is far, far, more ‘energy-efficient’ in terms of time (and intellectual horsepower and other resources) to run from glib half-truth to well-phrase misrepresentation to outright fabricated lies than to remain faithful to truthful engagement. And, it is far easier to promulgate such untruthful thinking than to chase after the falsehoods, in a perpetual whack-a-mole game, as a white knight debunker.

Across the spectrum, in American politics, the half-truths and falsehoods seem too often to have rein. From “Obama is a Socialist” to “taxes are evil” to “Global Warming is a scam run by a world-wide conspiracy of scientists who are after funding”, too much of the American public (and too much of our political debate) is impregnated with such truthiness and falsehoods and it undermines our ability to have a healthily functioning civil society.

Let us be clear, there are interests — serious interests — behind much of this truthiness.

Coates is looking at “Comfortable History” and how distortions of mid-19th century American society leads to a ‘comfortable’ counter-factual concept of American history that fits right into Nixonian ‘southern strategy’.

History is ‘social science’.

Considering Coates’ work suggests that ‘Comfortable History’ is a soft-science element of “sound science”.

“Sound Science” sounds so good … after all, who wouldn’t want science to be sound?

The challenge is that the answer is that those promoting “Sound Science” are those seeking to undermine the scientific method and most people’s understanding of what science is / should be …
[Read more →]

This guest post by a scientist who finds himself a FishOutOfWater highlights just how concerned we should be … global warming is not an issue for your grandchildren …

Flowers are blooming in England in January more than a month early. The Vail, Colorado ski resort has  no natural snow for the first time in 30 years of operation while Homer Alaska had over 15 feet of snow by the tenth of January smashing all time records. Temperatures were strangely warm in the Dakotas with highs reaching the low seventies on Jan 5 & 6 in several towns in South Dakota, smashing records by as much as 15°F. _{Crocuses in England credit:Ben Birchall}

This guest post comes from a correspondent who, painfully, wishes to be identified solely as a “Former Post Subscriber”. This former post subscriber was outraged by the Washington Post’s editorial attacking President Obama for putting a hold on the Keystone XL pipeline. Seeing the word “addiction,” this “Former Post Subscriber” chose to see how it would read if we substituted another hazardous (and, in this case, illegal) addiction in the place of our fossil-foolish addiction. As I am sure you will agree, it makes compelling and painful reading …

Obama’s Heroin Supply Line rejection is hard to accept

By Editorial Board, Wednesday, January 18, 7:46 PM

ON TUESDAY, President Obama’s Jobs Council reminded the nation that it is still hooked on heroin, and will be for a long time. “Continuing to deliver inexpensive and reliable dope ,” the council reported, “is going to require the United States to optimize all of its natural resources and construct pathways (pipelines, transmission and distribution) to deliver White China and Mexican Brown .”

It added that regulatory “and permitting obstacles that could threaten the development of some heroin projects, negatively impact jobs and weaken our dope infrastructure need to be addressed.”

Mr. Obama’s Jobs Council could start by calling out .?.?. the Obama administration.

On Wednesday, the State Department announced that it recommended rejecting the application of TransCanada Corp. to build the Keystone XL heroin pipeline, and Mr. Obama concurred. The project would have transported heavy, tar-like smack from Alberta — and, potentially, from unconventional heroin deposits in states such as Montana — to U.S. refineries on the Gulf of Mexico coast.

Environmentalists have fought Keystone XL furiously. In November, the State Department tried to put off the politically dangerous issue until after this year’s election, saying that the project, which had undergone several years of vetting, required further study. But Republicans in Congress unwisely upped the political gamesmanship by mandating that State make a decision by Feb. 21. Following Wednesday’s rejection, TransCanada promised to reapply — so the administration has again punted the final decision until after the election.

We almost hope this was a political call because, on the substance, there should be no question. Without the pipeline, Canada would still export its heroin — with long-term trends in the global market, it’s far too valuable to keep in the ground — but it would go to China. And, as a State Department report found, U.S. refineries would still import low-quality smack — just from the Middle East. Stopping the pipeline, then, wouldn’t do anything to reduce global warming, but it would almost certainly require more dope to be transported across oceans in tankers.

Environmentalists and Nebraska politicians say that the route TransCanada proposed might threaten the state’s ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region. But TransCanada has been willing to tweak the route, in consultation with Nebraska officials, even though a government analysis last year concluded that the original one would have “limited adverse environmental impacts.” Surely the Obama administration didn’t have to declare the whole project contrary to the national interest — that’s the standard State was supposed to apply — and force the company to start all over again.

Environmentalists go on to argue that some of the heroin U.S. refineries produce from Canada’s dope might be exported elsewhere. But even if that’s true, why force those refineries to obtain their heroin from farther away? Anti-Keystone activists insist that building the pipeline will raise dope prices in the Midwest. But shouldn’t environmentalists want that? Finally, pipeline skeptics dispute the estimates of the number of jobs that the project would create. But, clearly, constructing the pipeline would still result in job gains during a sluggish economic recovery.

There are far fairer, far more rational ways to discourage dope use in America, the first of which is establishing higher heroin taxes. Environmentalists should fight for policies that might actually do substantial good instead of tilting against Keystone XL, and President Obama should have the courage to say so.

© The Washington Lost Company

NOTE: This restructured editorial is published in accordance with satire guidance as to proper use of copyrighted material. 

Consider the risks from our fossil fuel usage and burning of ‘liquid gold’.  And, consider how scandalous it would be to use the term “addiction” like this in a discussion of heroin.

When it comes to the November 2012elections, few people identify science as the core issue. Economic concerns (JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!), fossil-foolish fueled anger at government, passions over the role of government, the Occupy Movement (what is happening to the 99% while the 1% profit?), and otherwise are among the many “core” issues.  A hidden element of the election, for most Americans, is that this election is fundamentally about science.

Very simply, while most Americans continue to hold science and scientists in high regard, an increasingly large share of the Republican Party’s elite, office holders, candidates, and mouth pieces are taking seriously anti-science positions.

• While the scientific community sees the Theory of Global Warming to be as strongly based as the Theory of Gravity, those dominating the Republican Party attack climate scientists as engaged in a global cabal to falsify scientific data.
• Many senior people in the Republican Party denigrate the Theory of Evolution and promote inclusion of religious beliefs into science classrooms.
• When it comes to environmental regulatory actions, leading Republican politicians belittle scientists and scientific work with, for a recent example, outright denials of the serious health risks and impacts of mercury poisioning.
• Hiding under the guise of “sound science”, Republican politicians promote polluter-driven pseudo-science to skew policy away from honest science-based discussions.

As Nature magazine’s editors summarized it two years ago in Science Scorned,

The anti-science strain pervading the right wing in the United States is the last thing the country needs in a time of economic challenge.

That searing editorial began with a quotation from Rush Limbaugh:

The four corners of deceit: government, academia, science and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That’s how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.

While, as Nature’s editors state, “it is tempting to to laugh this off,” the reality is that Rush’s bombast is the position taken by too many of 2012’s Republican Party candidates. Expertise and knowledge and institutions that value these are the enemy.

Sadly, Rush and ilk are making understanding and support of science an ideological litmus test.
While climate denial is central to that litmus test, it is far from the only element.

Denialism over global warming has become a scientific cause célèbre within the movement. Limbaugh, for instance, who has told his listeners that “science has become a home for displaced socialists and communists”, has called climate-change science “the biggest scam in the history of the world”. The Tea Party’s leanings encompass religious opposition to Darwinian evolution and to stem-cell and embryo research — which Beck has equated with eugenics. The movement is also averse to science-based regulation, which it sees as an excuse for intrusive government. Under the administration of George W. Bush, science in policy had already taken knocks from both neglect and ideology. Yet President Barack Obama’s promise to “restore science to its rightful place” seems to have linked science to liberal politics, making it even more of a target of the right.

It is hard to understate the damage that anti-science syndrome suffering ideologues create. The achievements of science are core to our existence, from medicine that saves our lives to analytical tools that enable speed-of-light communications to … Demonization of science fosters, in the near and long-term, a weakened economic competitiveness for the United States. And, it will lead to a much weaker nation in the decades to come due to climate chaos in addition to a weakening of America’s position in the sciences.

Few Americans put ‘respect for science’ and basic scientific knowledge at the top of the list when they go into the poll booth. Considering the stark contrast between the parties and the serious negative consequences of having a governing elite ignorant of and disdainful for science, perhaps it should make it higher up the list.

With the State Of The Union (SOTU) address, the President has the opportunity to seize the initiative to put science higher up the list.  He should lay out, directly, how critical science is to our current lives and for securing future prosperity and security. He should lay out, directly, the start contrasts between the parties when it comes to science and appeal (above the heads of Members of Congress) on the American people to fight to restore sanity when it comes to science in our political process.  He can start with a strong discussion of climate science, an arena of incredibly start difference between the two parties, but should not end there.  In 2009, in a speech to the National Academy of Sciences, President Obama said before the National Academy of Science,

we are restoring science to its rightful place

The SOTU speechwriters should go back to that 2009 speech and take it as inspiration to restore science to its rightful place in the national debate.

NOTES:

1. See after the fold for polling information about scientists and their political affiliation. 
2. Many are calling on the President to address climate science in the SOTU.  See, for example, here, here, and here.
3. Science Debate formed in 2008 in an effort to give science a seat at the table in Presidential election debates and are working to do so in 2012.  Some notable points from Science Debate-related polling lay out starkly how key national issues revolve around science.  Here are some of the results from that polling:

•  85% of US Adults Say Presidential Candidates Should Debate Science Issues
• Majority Say Scientific Research In The Past Affects Our Present Quality of Life
• Majority Say Scientific Research Today Affects Our Future Quality of Life
• 83% Say It’s Important That Candidates Talk About How Science Will Affect Their Policy-making Decisions
• 67% Say Public Policies Should Be Influenced More By Scientific Evidence Than Personal Beliefs
• 84% Say Scientific Innovation Improves Our Standard Of Living

[Read more →]

Energy policy is a rather complicated domain. That complexity is worsened when factual errors (whether purposefully driven or accidental) enter into the discussion. In the weeks since the news broke about U.S. refined products now being a net export, rather than import, marketplace, it is hard to overstate the number of times where people have mistakenly claimed that “the U.S. is now an oil exporter”.   Similarly, for years now, commentator after commentator states that coal provides more than half of U.S. energy (difference, no, between energy and electricity leaped over) and more specifically more than half of U.S. electricity.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, in what was mainly a quite strong speech (discussed here), added his voice to the list today:

if we stopped burning coal this afternoon and cut the power in the U.S. grid by 50 percent, as Mayor Bloomberg advocates, he’d be reading handwritten memos by candlelight this evening.

“Cut the power in the U.S. grid by 50 percent” certainly is a clear statement that coal provides half America’s electricity.

This, however, is not true.  And, it has not been true for years. And, with each passing year, as more renewables and natural gas systems come online, it is less true.  Coal, in fact, fell below 50 percent of U.S. electricity generation back in 2004 according to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (pdf). And, it has seen a steady fall in its share of the U.S. electricity market since then. In 2011, through September, coal provided a bit more than 40 percent of U.S. electricity supply:  1.353 million terrawatt hours out of 3.156 of total production. Thus, for the first nine months of 2011, coal electricity provided a bit less than 43 percent of total electricity supply in the United States.

Perhaps one can excuse this, since it is just a few words in a speech and 43 percent seems so close to half, but the reality of our current situation — even without meaningful climate change policy — is that coal is on an inexorable downward spiral as part of the U.S. electricity grid.  As old coal plants retire, new generation has to come in and utilities are finding that natural gas and renewable energy sources are smarter and more cost-effective options than seeking to develop new coal power plants.

Now, Trumka is focused on the jobs implications of reducing coal burning.  While it is, as per Trumka lays out, absurd to assert that 100% stoppage of coal burning overnight, reducing coal usage in electricity plants is not actually the primary threat to coal-mining jobs. The coal industry has been working, assisdiously, for decades to get the miner out of the mine and out of mining. Automation and surface mining (whether mountain top removal or otherwise)  have had devastating impacts on coal mining employment over the past several decades. And, those impacts might actually accelerate as automation is reaching the point where many jobs (such as drivers for trucks) might simply disappear.  For those in mining communities, they’re future prosperity is tied inexorably to their future health:  seize a leadership role in the move to a clean energy economy.

As the American ‘traditional’ media seems fixated on asserting that “labor” supports the Keystone XL pipeline, it seems oblivious to the reality that America’s labor movement now has some of the most thoughtful voices about how to address climate change challenges to foster a stronger social stability (including higher employment) while reducing our carbon impacts.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka just gave a speech at the 2012 UN Investor Summit on Climate Risk.  Trumka’s speech, provided in full after the fold, merits reading.  In something that the White House would be well advised to use as a model for the State Of The Union address, Trumka succinctly and forcefully

• Lays out climate science;
• Identifies structural issues that drive the requirement for government action; and,
• Highlights gains to be achieved through addressing these issues and undertaking climate-mitigation actions.

According to Trumka, what is the state of play?

scientists tell us we are headed ever more swiftly toward irreversible climate change—with catastrophic consequences for human civilization. We must have a stable climate to feed the planet, to ensure there is drinking water for our cities but not floodwaters at our doors. A stable climate is the foundation of our global civilization, of our global economy—the prerequisite for a profitable investment environment.

Get it?  “Stable climate is the foundation of our global civilization” and without a stable climate don’t expect a “profitable investment environment”.

While the gains of the 1% don’t necessarily benefit Labor (which are, essentially, 100% part of the 99%), why is a “profitable investment environment” something someone like Trumka promotes?  Why should the labor movement focus on climate, rather than the myriad of other real issues and seemingly more pressing issues?

why should investors or working people focus on climate risk when we have so many economic problems across the world? The labor movement has a clear answer: Addressing climate risk is not a distraction from solving our economic problems. My friends, addressing climate risk means retooling our world—it means that every factory and power plant, every home and office, every rail line and highway, every vehicle, locomotive and plane, every school and hospital, must be modernized, upgraded, renovated or replaced with something cleaner, more efficient, less wasteful.

Taking on the threat of climate change means putting investment capital to work creating jobs. It means building a road to a healthier world and a healthier world economy–one less dependent on volatile energy prices, one where many more of us have the things that modern energy makes possible.

Trumka correctly identifies the failure to account for “externalities” and anti-science syndrome domination of (and power in) Congress as key obstacles to meaningful action.

the American labor movement decided we couldn’t wait—we had to act to help advance profitable, risk weighted investments that would create jobs and address climate change.

While not necessarily in agreement with his words enshrining coal’s future, Trumka is correct about the necessity to understand the positions of those threatened by meaningful climate action and develop paths to help them gain in a transition to a cleaner, more prosperous, climate-friendly economy.

Let’s think about the new EPA emissions rules for power plants. All of the unions of the AFL-CIO want to see coal fired power plants retrofitted immediately to cut back on mercury and sulfur emissions—those retrofits create good jobs, save lives. We oppose anyone who would take away the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to keep our air and water clean. But power plant and mine workers want to know that if their employers commit to doing the retrofits, they will get the time to complete them. Surely through dialogue common ground can be found between workers who want the retrofit jobs and clean air and public health advocates.

But we need to be honest that mass unemployment makes everything harder and feeds fear. The AFL-CIO has not taken a position on the Keystone pipeline—unions don’t agree among ourselves. But we cannot have a trust building conversation about it unless opponents of the Pipeline recognize that construction jobs are real jobs, good jobs, [editors’ note: no pipeline opponent, that I know, has ever stated that construction jobs aren’t “real jobs, good jobs” even when they questioned exaggerated industry claims about job creation] and supporters of the Pipeline recognize that tar sands oil raises real issues in terms of climate change. ….

how can all Americans sit down together and develop trust? I think it begins with a commitment—a challenging and difficult commitment—that we are going to measure our approach not by how well it fits the needs of the well-positioned. We must ask ourselves, “How well does this pathway serve the least, the hardest to reach, the most likely to be left behind?” Places like West Virginia and the Ohio Valley must come first, not last.

“Yes. We Can.” foster a rapid transition to a clean economy via a Just Transition.  This would be a worthwhile message to hear from the White House.

See also: AFL-CIO Head Rich Trumka: ‘Congress Is Effectively Controlled By Climate Change Deniers’

[Read more →]

I received a couple notes from Twitter.

The official White House blogger, Jon Carson, is now following me and responded to one of my messages.

JonCarson44

@A_Siegel thanks for helping me hear from folks about SOTU, getting lots of people talking about clean energy jobs  Jan 09, 8:50 AM via web

In reply to…

A_Siegel WH asks: What should be in the SOTU? bit.ly/znyByR clear answer: #CleanEnergyJobs #Climate #Science @joncarson44  Jan 06, 6:07 PM via web

While it may be ‘cool’ to be one of the 1500+ Twitter accounts that the “Official WH twitter account” is following (Really?  “Following” with how much diligence?), it is interesting that Jon Carson thank me (and others) about “clean energy jobs” while remaining (from what I have seen) silent when it comes to impassioned calls for the President to address (seriously, directly, substantively) climate change in the State Of The Union (SOTU) address.

Now, essentially at the same time that I sent the responded to tweet, amid my publicizing Jon Carson’s call for public thoughts as to what should be in the SOTU, I also sent in this one:

With warm weather records breaking across the upper Midwest, President needs to talk about #climate science in #SOTU #green @joncarson44

Now, when I let a few electronic correspondents know that I was now one of 1500+ Jon Carson followed, a discussion began about the White House’s studied silence on climate change issues amid weather disruption that, too sadly, seems to match the media’s stony silence on climate science.  And, one of those thoughtful correspondents sent me this

I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s getting as many about climate as clean energy jobs and what he is trying to do is say “I’m being responsive”…..i.e., when the President says “clean energy jobs” he is responding to “your concern” about climate (and that’s all he’s willing to say because, you know, climate is really a drag politically).  Twitter lends itself marvellously to this kind of “wink wink get it?” game.

While ‘proud’ to be one of those 1500+ being followed, I’d gladly put aside the honor for the chance to see “the official White House Twitter account” engage forthrightly on climate science issues. And, more importantly, to see the President lay out clearly and directly climate science within the State Of The Union speech.

UPDATE … No longer crickets. From the inbox:

JonCarson44
.

@A_Siegel saw your DailyKos post, hearing lots on POTUS talking about #Climate too! check out this from EPA too: http://t.co/2vXxil5y
Jan 12, 4:42 PM via web

In reply to…

A_Siegel

WH asks: What should be in the SOTU? bit.ly/znyByR clear answer: #CleanEnergyJobs #Climate #Science @joncarson44
Jan 06, 6:07 PM via web

What about the political risks of addressing climate change directly?

Too many ‘politicos’ seem to view climate change and climate science as a losing game to play. After all, those denizens of democratic ideals like the Chamber of Commerce and USCOC President, Tom Donahue, the Koch Brothers, and Rush Limbaugh will weigh in heavily to attack any White House effort to educate the public truthfully about climate chaos, the risks that we face, and the opportunities created if we forthrightly address those risks.

This ‘traditional’ analysis is almost certainly at odds with a realistic look at the political landscape.

• Will Limbaugh, the Koch Brothers, Tea Party faithful, and other anti-science syndrome sufferers suddenly convert to fervent supporters of President Obama because he doesn’t enage on climate science issues?
• Will this motivate traditional base voters, who have a higher concern about climate issues than the overall population and many of whom find reasons to be dispirited about the President’s policies, find reasons for enthusiasm if the President lays out a truthful and honest message about climate science, including a contrast between the major parties’ stances on the science?
• Would this not educate the ‘undecided’ voter and influence their perspective on the choice come November 2012? After all, the American people have a high regard for science and scientists. The Climate Zombie dominance, at this time, of Republican Party politics is seriously at odds with the scientific community. (See here and here as well.) The American public will not, writ large, be aware of this yawning gap between the Party’s status within the climate (and other) science communities without forceful Presidential engagement.

Very simply, it would be a winning strategy to lay out — clearly and forcefully — why November 2012 is truly an election about science.

And, I ‘retweeted’ a range of powerful comments re the need to address climate change in the SOTU.  Perhaps the most accurate and cogent one came from Friends of the Earth

@JonCarson44 — not talking about climate change in the #SOTU is another form of climate denial