Long Hit & Quick Hits 5/12/08

Climate change and social justice. Two concepts that don’t ordinarily show up together in a discussion of either. The Progressive States’ Network issued a dispatch a while back that did just that. Some of the concepts presented included “Cap and Dump”, where lower-income communities could see no improvement of industrial emissions caps. Too often, polluters and commodity traders make most of the decisions regarding cap and trade schemes. Local governments need to make sure they’re heavily involved in these processes. Too many examples exist of corporate irresponsibility.

Cap-and-trade systems aren’t the most efficient or fair choice to implement, I think. Carbon taxes seem to me to be a better alternative. One reason is they apply to every carbon source. If a cap-and-trade system is implemented, emissions allowances must be auctioned off, not given away. The European Union made this mistake while setting up their initial market. I think I’ve read that to date, emissions aren’t down, nor are they steady. Emissions in the European market have continued to increase, although perhaps at a slower rate. The U.S. must not make the same mistake now that we have the opportunity to learn from Europe’s decisions.

The PSN Dispatch notes that a recent Brookings Institution paper presented a mechanism to help offset the cost of a carbon tax on lower-income households. The paper calls for the creation of an environmental earned income tax credit in the personal income tax that would be equal to the employer and employee payroll taxes on initial earnings (up to a limit). The tax credit could be financed by revenue raised through implementing the carbon tax. Economic analysis in the study shows that properly enacted rebates would completely offset any increase in costs by a carbon tax, a truly important consideration.

Another good point: new and better jobs in low-income communities can help fight the disproportionate burden of climate change on those communities. Specifically, environmentally beneficial jobs and economic growth can do quite a bit to offset that burden.

Those are some of the highlights I picked up from the report. Click on the link above to see the whole thing for yourself. They also include a large amount of additional resources as links from the Dispatch.

*****

A well laid out diary with maps of the Democratic Presidential contests held thus far. It’s a little long, but worth the read.

*****

The successful Colorado Forest Restoration Pilot Program extension has been passed by both chambers of the Colorado legislature. CO SB08-71, sponsored by Sen. Dan Gibbs, will provide $1 million annually through 2012 to help consumers implement forest treatment projects to reduce wildfire fuels.

The bill being send to Gov. Ritter couldn’t have come at a better time. One recent study estimated that every lodgepole pine forest from Pueblo to Wyoming will be decimated by the pine beetle infestation within five years, which is very bad news for the forest ecosystems and the state’s watersheds.

*****

The Colorado Wildlife Commission tackled what it saw as shortcomings in the oil and gas commissions’ plans for drilling, as required by CO HB08-1298. Chief among their concerns included timing restrictions, surface-occupancy limitations and reclamation. The issue of reclamation was a major point of discussion, which is appropriate given the industry’s track record of leaving land even remotely similar to how it existed prior to drilling. Here’s hoping the CWC’s work does some good.

Global Warming Denyers: Take Responsibility!

Something the right-wing parroted over and over since I can remember is taking responsibility for your actions. It was used to great effect when St. Ronnie Reagan bashed on people receiving welfare in the 1980’s, claiming too many of them were driving Cadillacs, among other ridiculous claims. “Take responsibility for your actions,” the right would scream at anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby. George Bush has provided thousands of examples of how the same advice just doesn’t apply to Republicans, the Iraq occupation and Hurricane Katrina being just two examples.

I wrote about one recent example just over a week ago after I read that Dennis Avery, a “Senior Fellow” at the Heartland Institute, wrote and widely published an article, “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares”. The biggest problem with that article? Many of the scientists listed never gave their consent to be listed. So the scientists did what they should have done: asked to have their names removed from Avery’s propaganda. Then what happened?

Via frankbi, a few things have happened. First, the title was changed:

The title of the 14 Sep press release has been changed from

500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares: Alphabetical List

to

500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares

This happened between 2 May and 4 May. Were any of the scientists’ names removed? Of course not! That wouldn’t jive with the propaganda, now would it. I mean, Exxon and other corporations have paid millions of dollars to have their crap spewed by “reputable institutions”. Admitting they were lying wouldn’t achieve that goal.

Now, the debacle has reached a wider audience: the New Zealand media. You know, New Zealand, where science is actually respected. The U.S. corporate media? They likely think this is how things should happen. Now, H.I.’s President Joe Bast says there will be no further changes either to the title of the paper or those cited as supporting its flawed conclusions.

This constitutes a complete disregard for accepted methodologies within responsible, professional organizations. This constitutes a complete lack of “taking responsibility” for one’s actions. This serves as just the latest example of why the right-wing is slowly losing influence: their actions and intentions just aren’t credible. I haven’t heard one way or the other, but I wonder if legal pressure is being considered. I know if my name were on that list, I’d do everything (legal and ethical) I could to remove it.

The problem really manifests itself when “analysts” (propagandists) from the Heartland Institute or the Independence Institute get attention in the corporate media. They’re brought on as guests to right-wing radio shows and invited to write columns in major newspapers, as though they’re serious, neutral professionals. And what’s the first thing they always parrot? That peer-reviewed science journal articles constitute junk science, and their “science” is without bias.

This case demonstrates something very important: if the denialist propagandists lie and act unethically so easily, why are they taken seriously by the corporate media? Because they’re connected and they have an agenda.

Thankfully, more citizens and businesses are taking the threat of climate change seriously. They’re acting of their own volition. They’re actually following the right-wing’s advice and taking responsibility for their actions. Those millions of propaganda dollars spent by Big Energy? It’s turning into a wasted investment.

h/t DeSmogBlog

Quick Hits 5/8/08

The third generation Toyota Prius is due to hit the market in spring of 2009. Road & Track has a little preview of what to expect. It should be slightly longer and have a slightly larger engine. Hank Green at EcoGeek wants to see Toyota move from nickel batteries to lithium-ion technology. I agree with Hank: with gas prices where they are, consumers would benefit from having stronger, longer-lasting batteries. In a couple of years, I predict they will be essentially required.

*****

I received an email from Russ Feingold’s Progressive Patriots Fund earlier this morning. A second installment has opened up allowing votes for House candidates. Betsy Markey, running for CO-04’s seat, against the odious Marilyn “Mad Cow” Musgrave, is on the list!

Whoever garners the most votes by next Wednesday at 5P will receive $5,000 from the Fund. Every little bit helps and the visibility would do wonders for Betsy’s campaign, I’m sure.

Go vote for Betsy!

Denver Climate: April 2008

The NWS released Denver’s April Climate Summary. April was the 5th driest in Denver’s history dating back to 1872. This follows a dry March for Denver, which ranked as the 3rd driest on record. The snowfall for the winter was below average. Thankfully, temperatures were near average. If that changes in the upcoming months, drought conditions are coming back.

Climate Sensor to Fly on Satellite

This is certainly good news. A previously slashed instrument has been reapproved for inclusion to the NPOESS satellite scheduled for launch in 2013.

NOAA, the U.S. Air Force and NASA agreed this week to restore the Total Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS) to the first NPOESS (National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System). Set to launch in 2013, NPOESS is a new civil/military satellite system that will monitor the Earth’s weather, atmosphere, oceans, land and near-space environment. The mission will monitor the planet and providing data for long-range weather and climate forecast models.

TSIS will measure the total amount of solar radiation that comes into the earth’s atmosphere- a key data point and factor in climate change.

As mentioned, scientists need those high quality data for inclusion in models. A number of climate change denyers didn’t want that sensor to fly: it’s easier to say something isn’t happening if nobody can measure it accurately. I am very pleased this sensor is once again being included.

Quick Hits & 1 Long Hit 5/6/08

The Climate Security Act needs to be strengthened. You can use the League of Conservation Voter’s action page to request your Senators to do so.

Oil hit $122 per barrel in trading today. That’s double what it was one year ago. That’s more pressure exerted on families’ budgets.

Buyout billionaire Henry Kravis saved $96 million through tax loopholes in 2006 alone. That’s just one buyout billionaire, in one year, making use of one loophole (tax evasion scheme)! Just think how much these private equity crooks are costing taxpayers who are already battling financial hardships and home foreclosures. BraveNewFilms has a video about this and a request for the presidential candidates to close the buyout industry’s tax evasion scheme.

The Bush “administration” has lost 400 employee laptops that conduct delicate, often secret, diplomatic relations with foreign countries, an internal audit has found.

Ironically, the Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program is administered by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), which is responsible for the security of the department’s computer networks and sensitive equipment, including laptops, among other duties.

These are the same idiots who want to convince Americans they can responsibly handle access to information about the lives of Americans while demanding no Congressional oversight. HAHAHAHAHA! I don’t know what’s worse though: the above or the fact that Rep. Steny Hoyer and others are still willing to grant retroactive immunity to proven lawbreaking telecommunications corporations.

Analysts are reportedly torn over what an energy windfall profits tax would do. A few things here: corporations were given tax breaks by President Bush and Congress. Now that Democrats want the breaks to expire, what are Republicans and corporations calling the action? That’s correct: a tax increase. They’re spinning it like the tax was never before applied and woe to the poor corporations that are earning profits in the billions every quarter.

Re-applying fair taxes on the oil corporations could provide long-overdue dollars to renewable energy research and development. There needs to be a much larger focus on the development side of things. Technologies exist to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions - we need to help drive them into the marketplace more efficiently.

If oil corporations raise gas prices to regenerate their ridiculous profits, a majority of consumers will not blame the government. It would be clear at that point which entity was really responsible for excessive prices.

Pro-corporate analysts in the article bring up the fact that Google has a profit margin of 25% while oil corporations have profit margins closer to 10% and nobody is recommending a windfall profits tax on Google. Can you point to an example of how you or your family is paying more for goods because of Google? Oil corporations are directing more of their profits to buying back their stock, enriching stock holders. They should be directing that money to developing refining capacity. They’ve ignored refineries for decades and we’re paying the price for that short-sightedness at the pump.

Of course, the ultimate ideological argument has to be presented: government shouldn’t force movement of monies to R&D, the “free-market” should. The Heritage Foundation gets a nod in the article, with David Kreutzer asking if the government could take this capital and do a better job investing it than shareholders can. David and others aren’t willing to recognize that shareholders haven’t been able to make the correct decisions in the past generation. They’re only interested in further enriching themselves and the rest of us get to suffer for it: high gas prices, geopolitical instability and occupying the Middle East are only a few examples.

I, for one, have no more patience for these greedy vampires. The “free-market” has been unable to act in the interests of our society’s citizens. Taxes need to be reapplied to oil corporations and the richest Americans. They need to invest their fair share into our nation’s infrastructure and long-term interests.

States’ Legislature Energy Roundup 5/1/08

I’m Colorado-centric in legislature watching. However, I also keep an eye on how and what other states’ legislatures are doing. What’s done in one state can usually be done in another. The right-wing has nearly perfected this approach. The ill-named TABOR introduced in Colorado and immigration policies introduced in California only begin to scratch the surface of their attempts to invent, implement and spread bad ideas. So, in an effort to capitalize on good things being done in other states, here we go.

First up, Maryland. They doubled their renewable energy standard to 20% by 2022. They allocated $40 million per year for clean energy programs. They will require utilities to reduce per capita electricity consumption 10% by 2015. They increased the amount of grant money to $10K for solar panels and $3K for solar hot water systems. The prohibited residential communities from banning solar panel installation. (HOA powers, usually controlled by out-of-the-area interests are one of my greatest pet peeves.) New state buildings and public schools will be required to meet green building standards. (This needs to apply to all new construction, and to construction projects that will amount to a certain percentage of the buildings value prior to construction.) Development around transit stations will be boosted.

Next: West Virginia. Their legislature created a limited sales tax holiday for Energy Star appliance purchases. (Which is a much smarter idea than the federal gas tax holiday, which Republican in Democrats clothing Sen. Clinton wants. Panderer.) A program that accepts some electronics and incentives for recycling some electronics was created. Counties and municipalities can now enter into contracts for saving energy. Production of coal bed methane will no longer generate tax exemptions. The coal bed methane will be taxed as a natural gas now.

In Kentucky, watershed authorities will be created to restore and improve streams around the Commonwealth. Incentives for homeowners will be created to use solar and wind energy, as well as other energy-efficient lights, windows, and insulation. State and local governments will be required to build and lease energy-efficient buildings.

These serve as reminders that, contrary to what global warming denialists want the public to believe, solutions to create an energy smart society exist today and can be implemented quite easily when political will acknowledges the problem responsibly. When Colorado’s legislature is done, I’ll do some comparative work between our and other states’ legislatures.

Global Warming Denyers Falsify Scientists’ Work

The following certainly deserves its own post.

A leading global warming denyer outfit, the Heartland Institute, has been called out by scientists whose work they misrepresented. What happened? Well, the Heartland Institute held a conference back in early March called the ‘Climate Skeptics’ Conference. Following the conference, the Institute made sure to distribute widely (the Vast portion of the Vast Right Wing Machine) an article entitled, “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.” Wow, that sounds impressive, doesn’t it?

As it turns out, it’s not so impressive. Dennis T. Avery, a “Senior Fellow” at Heartland and director of the Hudson Institute, wrote the article. He should have done a better job. An activist looked at the 500 names and emailed 122 scientists Monday afternoon. At last count, 45 of them have responded, rightfully outraged, that their work in no way supports Avery’s conclusions and have demanded that their names be removed. If you’re familiar with the Oregon Petition, this event falls neatly in line with that bogus effort. Those 45 scientists issues responses only in the first 24 hours following emails being sent to them. I expect there will be others moving forward.

Is there a special interest that has a history of funding Heartland? Of course: ExxonMobil. Importantly, Exxon is not the only source of funds. However:

Heartland’s extreme anti-environmentalism no doubt spawns from its supporters. Between 1998 and 2005, oil giant ExxonMobil gave nearly $800,000 to Heartland. The group’s Board of Directors also explains the group’s climate change denials:

– Thomas Walton is the Director of Economic Policy at General Motors.

–James L. Johnston is a former senior economist for oil company Amoco Corporation.

–Walter F. Buchholtz is a former member of Heartland’s board of directors and worked as ExxonMobil’s Senior Issues Advisor.

See, here’s the thing: climate change is completely supported by peer-reviewed research articles that have been presented in scientific journals. As I’ve noted before, the only problem that research has is, as incomplete as it is, it has so far underestimated the effects of human-caused climate change. Understandably, the research and forecasts of future effects has also failed to incorporate unforseen feedbacks, such as millions of acres of trees that have been killed by mountain pine beetles releasing their stored carbon into the atmosphere.

In the larger scheme, however, this event, and others before it, clearly demonstrate a lack of integrity from the right-wing’s global warming denialists. If they can’t find 500 scientists willing to put their names up for Avery’s article, they shouldn’t trumpet their efforts to do so. This is a cheap gimmick designed to lend credence to their argument. Their lack of honesty has efficiently taken any such credence away.

This is how desperate the fringe right-wing is, folks. They have to cobble together names of supporters without first notifying them, despite the fact that those scientists’ work don’t advance their ideology’s argument. If their arguments and positions were solid, they wouldn’t have to lie and distract to attract attention and support. But instead we are forced to watch spectacles like this. If the facts worked in their favor, there wouldn’t be such a large machine spending millions of dollars per year to convince the public of them.

Response from Sen. Salazar & Feedback Info

I wrote to Sen. Salazar a short time back requesting that he take and encourage others to take seriously the threat that climate change poses to the world. Beyond taking it seriously, I encouraged the Senator to push measures now before Congress that could begin the shift toward dealing with this crisis. I got a response back and show part of it below:

The Senate is currently considering several pieces of climate change legislation. I believe a cap-and-trade system is the best and most flexible way of guaranteeing that the lowest cost measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are adopted first. At the same time, we must be careful to design this policy so as not to place our industries at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace and simultaneously encourage other countries to voluntarily reduce their carbon emissions.

Cap-and-trade systems do indeed ensure low cost measures are adopted first. But it’s like buying a little fire extinguisher when your house is already on fire: it’s too little, too late. What Sen. Salazar and other business first, last and always policy-makers aren’t fully recognizing is that other countries will begin working to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. If the United States waits for those other countries to establish their methodologies, we’ll be behind the curve and will permanently lose marketplace share - globally. This country should do the heavy lifting and hard work to develop emission reduction strategies now, so that when other countries decide they want to join the process, we can export services and ideas to them at a profit.

Sen. Salazar is under sway of business interests who more or less want to continue under a ‘business as usual’ attitude, one that emphasizes short-term profits. Groups and governments that plan for the long-term with respect to climate change will come out of the 21st century in much better condition that they entered.

Solutions ready for today’s market are being held back by corporate welfare give-aways that unfairly prop up the fossil fuel industry. It might make their balance sheets look good today, but the price to society will be terrible tomorrow. Needless to say, Sen. Salazar’s response is discouraging and unacceptable. We need policy makers that are prepared for 21st century problem-solving, not those who cannot move away from 20th century thinking.

Global Warming Pollution’s Price Tag

Climate change denyers have in recent months put forth a conspiracy theory that discussion surrounding climate change exists only to undermine the framework of “free-market” economies. Their efforts to continue delaying decisions in the sphere of government is being undermined by decisions from corporations to begin taking risks of global warming pollution into account when lending:

Banks, investment firms, corporations and utilities have begun to price out carbon emissions at $20 per ton. Bank of America, the nation’s second-largest bank, is the latest addition to this list. In a February speech, CEO Ken Lewis stated, “We need a stable and predictable regulatory environment with a bias toward clean energy and the green economy. When innovators and financial backers are confident of government support, risk calculations change and good things happen.”

To help realize that stable market, he announced the bank’s decision to price global warming pollution at $20 to $40 per ton in assessing risks for lending.

This announcement follows an earlier call to action by more than 60 leading investors, asset managers and companies with assets totaling $4 trillion. This group, which includes ALCOA, Sun Microsystems, and Dupont, called on the federal government to tackle global warming and included a call for pricing of global warming pollution.

Denyers arguments were incredibly weak to begin with, but these developments should clarify just how far into the fringe they really are. If the nation’s 2nd largest bank and groups with $4 trillion in assets are pricing in greenhouse gas emissions into risk analyses, it means they can’t seriously want to undermine their own economic foundations. Further, those investors and asset managers aren’t rabid environmentalists, a favorite boogeyman of the radical right.

So what would this mean in the real world? The cost of coal has jumped by 50% in the past seven years and additional coal plants are being considered for construction. Some math from the op-ed:

With an added charge of just $30 per ton, the mid-range of what banks and businesses are already planning for, the cost of power for Coloradans would skyrocket. As a typical coal plant generates 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, this charge would add $111 million per year to the operating cost of a single plant. Multiply that by the 50 years that a typical plant will run and those additional costs run into the billions.

With businesses on board, it is time to ignore the denyers and deal with reality in a responsible fashion. If denyers can see beyond their radical ideology, they’re welcome to join the discussion.