Archive for the ‘Climate science’ Category

« Older Entries

New EPA data pinpoints global warming polluters

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Here’s the latest from Dina Cappiello at The Associated Press:

The most detailed data yet on emissions of heat-trapping gases show that U.S. power plants are responsible for the bulk of the pollution blamed for global warming.

Power plants released 72 percent of the greenhouse gases reported to the Environmental Protection Agency for 2010, according to information released Wednesday that was the first catalog of global warming pollution by facility. The data include more than 6,700 of the largest industrial sources of greenhouse gases, or about 80 percent of total U.S. emissions.

According to an Associated Press analysis of the data, 20 mostly coal-fired power plants in 15 states account for the top-releasing facilities.
Gina McCarthy, the top air official at the EPA, said the database marked “a major milestone” in the agency’s work to address climate change. She said it would help industry, states and the federal government identify ways to reduce greenhouse gases.

The Obama administration plans to regulate emissions of heat-trapping gases under existing law. A proposed regulation to address pollution from new power plants could be released as early as this month. Eventually, the EPA will have to tackle facilities already in operation. The largest emitters will be the first in line.

The largest greenhouse gas polluter in the nation in 2010, according to the EPA’s data, was the Scherer power plant in Juliette, Ga., owned by Southern Company. That coal-fired power plant reported releasing nearly 23 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, in 2010.

(more…)

Share|

Posted in Climate policy, Climate science | No Comments »

AP reports: Carbon levels worse than ‘worst case’

Thursday, November 3, 2011

In this Thursday, April 29, 2010 file photo, a pair of coal trains idle on the tracks near Dry Fork Station, a coal-fired power plant being built by the Basin Electric Power Cooperative near Gillette, Wyo.  (AP Photo/Matthew Brown)

My buddy Seth Borenstein at The Associated Press is reporting today:

The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world’s efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.

The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.

“The more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing,” said John Reilly, co-director of MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

(more…)

Share|

Posted in Climate science | No Comments »

CCS project stops, but global warming keeps going

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Dry soil cracks in the heat near Lake Hefner in Oklahoma City on Monday, July 18, 2011. (AP Photo/The Daily Oklahoman, John Clanton)

West Virginia elected officials may want to pretend that their opposition to any limits on greenhouse gas emissions had nothing to do with American Electric Power’s scuttling of a major carbon capture and storage project in Mason County. But in the wake of that AEP announcement, one thing can’t be ignored: The world continues to get warmer.

Here’s what Climate Science Watch said on Monday:

In a Capitol Hill briefing on the recently released State of the Climate in 2010 report, Tom Karl, Director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, rebutted the skeptic argument that global warming has stopped …

These indicators on a global scale constitute an “unmistakable signal that there is warming from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the oceans,” Karl concluded. 2010 was tied for the warmest year on record with 2005, while Greenland’s ice sheet lost the most mass in the last ten years. Changes to the Arctic’s climate are “occurring faster than in most of the rest of the world,” he said. The September Arctic sea ice extent was the third smallest of the past 30 years.

On his indispensable blog, Climate Progress, Joe Romm headlined his story, “Sorry Deniers, the Earth Just Keeps Warming – Thanks to Us“.

I mentioned last week how Hoppy Kercheval at MetroNews opined that the move by AEP to ditch its CCS project was “understandable”:

Customers are already squeezed because of the natural growth in rates and the sluggish economy. Requiring them to pay for a carbon sequestration experiment that might one day lead to lowering the planet’s temperature by a fraction of a degree won’t fly.

West Virginia, in fact the entire country, has more immediate problems.

More immediate? How about which problem is really more serious in the long-term picture?

Malee, a three-month old Asian elephant, cools off with a spray of water in her wading pool at the Oklahoma City Zoo in Oklahoma City, Monday, July 18, 2011. Much of the nation is in the grip of a broiling heat wave. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)

Joe Romm has a post called What if the CO2 Ceiling Debate Were Like the Debt Ceiling Debate that gets to the heart of those questions:

The national debt isn’t the greatest short-term problem we face. That is spurring jobs and economic growth.

And the debt certainly isn’t close to the greatest long-term problem we face. That would obviously be unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases, which threaten human civilization with multiple simultaneous catastrophes — from endless superstorms to permanent DustBowls.

Share|

Posted in CCS, Climate science | 4 Comments »

New National Academy study outlines ‘pressing need for substantial action’ on global warming

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Here’s the conclusion from a new report issued today by the National Academy of Sciences:

Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems. Each additional ton of greenhouse gases emitted commits us to further change and greater risks. In the judgment of the Committee on America’s Climate Choices, the environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks of climate change indicate a pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare to adapt to its impacts.

Among the specifics important to readers of this blog:

… Continuing to build new coal-fired power plants will lock in further dependence on GHG-intensive energy sources (unless commercial-scale carbon capture and storage soon become widely implemented).

And:

Significantly reducing U.S. GHG emissions, however it is accomplished, will produce “winners” and “losers” along several dimensions.

Increasing the price of carbon-intensive energy, for instance, will have a disproportionate impact on those who need to drive long distances to work and residents of some coal-mining communities.

Basic notions of fairness require that adverse energy price impacts on those least able to bear them be identified and addressed.

Carbon-related revenues, obtained from carbon taxes or auctioning of emissions allowances in a cap-and-trade system, would provide resources that could be used for this purpose.

Alternative or additional policy measures that make incentive-based climate change policies more accessible to low-income households (e.g., graduated subsidies or tax credits for home insulation improvements) may also be appropriate.

Directly engaging economically disadvantaged and other vulnerable communities in the policy planning process helps allow the legitimate interests of those communities to be addressed, while nonetheless allowing broadly desirable investments to be made.

A summary of the report is available here, and this is what my friend Dina Cappiello at The Asociated Press wrote about it:

An expert panel asked by Congress to recommend ways to deal with global warming said Thursday that the U.S. should not wait to reduce the pollution responsible and any efforts to delay action would be shortsighted.

But that’s exactly what Republicans and some Democrats in Congress are trying to do.

With a majority in the House and many freshman lawmakers skeptical of the science behind climate change, Republicans are pushing measures to block the federal government from controlling greenhouse gases.

The House passed a bill to do that last month. An identical measure failed to get enough votes in the Democratic-controlled Senate, but a majority there did support reining in the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to reduce heat-trapping pollution.

Share|

Posted in Climate policy, Climate science | 8 Comments »

Do W.Va. political leaders believe in science?

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

The Gazette’s political staff asked the Democratic gubernatorial candidates  a pretty straight-forward question about global warming:

Do you accept the science that global warming is occurring, and is largely caused by the emissions from coal-fired power plants? If so, what specifically would you have our state do about it?

The answers … well, nobody came right out and said they didn’t accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue, but it sure didn’t sound like any of them think it’s much of a problem — and certainly not the crisis that scientists keep warning us it is.

Take first, for example, Senate President Earl Ray Tomblin. Acting as governor, Tomblin answered this way:

I recognize that there is significant evidence that our planet is warming, and that some of that warming is caused by carbon emissions. I fundamentally disagree, however, with the current approach taken by the Federal Government to resolve this problem, and I will work to protect our coal economy.

So … the Senate President has told us what he’s against … But his answer doesn’t explain what he’s for. The question was, “… What specifically would you have our state do about it?”

How about our old friend, Sen. Jeff Kessler. He answered:

Yes, scientific data would seem to support global warming. However, there is no other viable energy alternative to meet our nation’s energy needs, for the next several decades, other than carbon fuels. Therefore, we must encourage research and development to expand technologies to reduce carbon emissions to protect the environment.

Again … no specifics. And experts point out that if we’re going to move away from a carbon-based energy economy, change needs to start soon. Be nice to hear exactly what Sen. Kessler would do in this regard.

Treasurer John Perdue?

I believe there is some truth to the science of global warming. But I believe this is an issue that requires leadership from the national level and can’t be solved by one state.

Really — “some truth” to the science? Seriously?  OK, then. Obviously, that is the reason he doesn’t explain what West Virginia should be doing about the climate crisis.

Secretary of State Natalie Tennant? Well, she is another one who doesn’t answer the question:

Responsible development of our natural resources will allow West Virginia to create thousands of new jobs and strategic investment in education, research and technology. We must, however, ensure we protect our environment, our roads and our communities. We must also ensure companies hire West Virginians for West Virginia work.

But House Speaker Rick Thompson wins the prize in my book for trying to avoid taking a position:

Everything we do has consequences to the environment, from mining to road building to housing construction. It’s imperative that we strike a balance between development and environmental protection. Clean coal technology is an example that holds much promise for our state.

Does he accept the science on global warming? He doesn’t say … should West Virginia do anything about it? Wait for it … “strike a balance” …

Perhaps it could be worse … at least they aren’t all denying the science (see here and here) like West Virginia political leaders often do.

Share|

Posted in Climate science, Politics | No Comments »

New Harvard study: Fully accounting for coal’s environmental impacts would triple its costs

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

The Boston Globe’s GreenBlog has an item out today about a new study from the Harvard Medical School’s Center for Health and the Global Environment. Here’s how reporter Beth Daley summarizes it:

By now, we all know coal’s climate change reputation: Power plants that burn it release enormous amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.

But a new report released today by the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School looks deeper at the full cost of coal, following its life cycle from exploration, through transportation, processing, and burning to estimate that coal is costing the U.S. one-third to over one-half a trillion dollars annually. The report was released aboard the Arctic Sunrise at Rowe’s Wharf, Greenpeace’s chartered icebreaker.

The report, being published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, notes that fully accounting for these costs would double to triple the price of electricity from coal, thus making wind, solar, and other forms of renewable energy far more competitive.

I’ve posted a summary of the Harvard study here.


Share|

Posted in Climate policy, Climate science, Coal pollution | 5 Comments »

U.N. Conference: Cancun, climate and coal

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

In this image released by Greenpeace on Sunday Nov. 28, 2010, a giant balloon rises next to the Chichen-Itza pyramids in Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula, Sunday Nov. 28, 2010. Facing another year without a global deal to curb climate change, the world’s nations will spend the next two weeks in Cancun, Mexico, during the annual conference of the 193-nation U.N. climate treaty, debating how to mobilize money to cope with what’s coming, as temperatures climb, ice melts, seas rise and the climate that nurtured man shifts in unpredictable ways. (AP Photo/Greenpeace)

A dispatch from The Associated Press set the tone for the start of the latest international climate talks in Canun, Mexico:

Frustrated at past failures, climate negotiators began a critical two-week conference Monday with a call from Mexico’s president to think beyond their nations’ borders and consider all humanity as they bargain over an agreement to fight global warming.

“The atmosphere is indifferent to the sovereignty of states,” President Felipe Calderon said in the keynote speech opening the conference in this well-guarded coastal resort.

“It would be a tragedy if our inability to see beyond our personal interests, our group or national interests makes us fail,” Calderon said in a speech to 15,000 delegates, business leaders, activists and journalists.

Three years of talks have been stymied by a sometimes acrimonious divide among industrial and developing countries about their responsibilities in fighting climate change and accepting legal limits on how much they can continue to pollute.

The Cancun conference is the first full U.N. meeting since the letdown last December of the Copenhagen summit, which brought 120 world leaders to the Danish capital in an abortive attempt to adopt an overarching accord governing emissions of made-made greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

Instead, that summit ended with a three-page political statement, including an intention to raise $100 billion annually to help poor countries fight the effects of climate change and move toward green development that does not rely on fossil fuels.

The Guardian had an interesting piece headlined, Let’s Look Beyond Carbon:

The political reality post-Copenhagen, however, means this just isn’t going to happen. We shouldn’t give up on the idea of a binding cap on global emissions in the long term. But right now we need interim measures that countries can agree on, which will ensure we start moving in the right direction. The best must not become the enemy of the good. Dogmatically held positions should be set aside to find solutions.

It’s unlikely that countries will sign up to binding limits on carbon dioxide unless growth can be decoupled from the use of fossil fuels. One way to do that would be to introduce rules to reduce the carbon intensity of our economies first. Instead of trying to agree binding emissions caps on whole countries, negotiators could agree Emissions Performance Standards (EPS) across specific industries and sectors – placing limits on the amount of carbon emitted per unit of energy.

A natural place to start would be electricity generation. Coal-burning power stations in the UK currently emit about 900 grams of carbon dioxide (gCO2) per kilowatt hour (KWh) of electricity produced – but could be brought down to 130 gCO2/ KWh if fitted with CCS technology to capture the carbon and store it. Gas plants are cleaner at roughly 400 g per KWh, but could get as low as 60 g if CCS becomes viable. Nuclear power emissions are as low as 20g per KWh and some renewables even lower.

(more…)

Share|

Posted in Climate policy, Climate science, International news | 11 Comments »

1st District update: More West Virginia politicians ignore the mounting science about global warming

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

We haven’t talked much on Coal Tattoo about the race for West Virginia’s 1st District Congressional seat … but the AP’s Vicki Smith had this interesting bit of information in her story today about yesterday’s debate between Democrat Mike Oliverio and Republican David McKinely:

West Virginia congressional candidates David McKinley and Michael Oliverio agreed Tuesday that federal spending and deficits are out of control, that the science suggesting man is to blame for global warming is questionable, and that Washington needs a change.

The story continues:

They also touched on coal, agreeing that the science behind global warming is questionable. Many scientists have disavowed past climate change research, McKinley said, and he’s waiting for valid science to convince him there’s a problem and whether man is to blame.

“This is an issue that people are using to try to stop the production of coal and the burning of coal in America, and we’ve got to find ways to stand up and say no to that,” he said, calling for more independent research. “I don’t want to listen to Al Gore tell me from a political standpoint that global warming is caused by man because I don’t think he can support it.”

Oliverio agreed, “I’m a bit of a skeptic.”

He said industry has been able to address many emissions issues, and a solution to make coal a cleaner fuel will be found.

Let’s see … last time I checked the basic science –  Carbon dioxide emissions are making the world warmer, humans are causing those emissions, and the impacts could be devastating — was agreed to by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, and science academies around the world (The AP unfortunately didn’t mention any of that in its story). Just this week, NOAA reported that 2010 is the hottest year on record so far.

Perhaps candidates Oliverio and McKinley could take a few moments to review “An illustrated guide to the latest climate science,” written by Joe Romm on his Climate Progress blog. If they did, they would learn:

In 2009, the scientific literature caught up with what top climate scientists have been saying privately for a few years now:

– Many of the predicted impacts of human-caused climate change are occurring much faster than anybody expected — particularly ice melt, everywhere you look on the planet.

– If we stay anywhere near our current emissions path, we are facing incalculable catastrophes by century’s end, including rapid sea level rise, massive wildfires, widespread Dust-Bowlification, large oceanic dead zones, and 9°F warming — much of which could be all but irreversible for centuries. And that’s not the worst-case scenario!

– The consequences for human health and well being would be extreme.

Or, one of them could eventually head to Congress with their head in the sand and, as Sen. Byrd cautioned, send a message that West Virginia says, “deal me out”. Sen Byrd thought that was a bad idea:

West Virginia would be much smarter to stay at the table. The 20 coal-producing states together hold some powerful political cards. We can have a part in shaping energy policy, but we must be honest brokers if we have any prayer of influencing coal policy on looming issues important to the future of coal like hazardous air pollutants, climate change, and federal dollars for investments in clean coal technology.

Share|

Posted in Climate science, Politics | 8 Comments »

Climate change update: Embracing science?

Friday, August 13, 2010

These two satellite images provided by NASA taken on July 28, 2010, left, and Aug. 5, 2010, right, shows the Petermann Glacier in Northern Greenland. A giant ice island, seen in image at right, has broken off the Petermann Glacier. A University of Delaware researcher says the floating ice sheet covers 100 square miles (260 sq. kilometers) _ more than four times the size of New York’s Manhattan Island. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the weather-related cataclysms of July and August fit patterns predicted by climate scientists, although those scientists always shy from tying individual disasters directly to global warming. (AP Photo/NASA)

We’ve published a couple of pretty amazing stories in the Gazette in the last few days, both of them from The Associated Press and both about the realities of climate change.

One of them dealt with the huge ice island that has broken off from the Petermann Glacier, shown in the photos above. The other was a broader look at floods, fires and melting ice that scientists say are signs that climate change is already underway.

And all of that climate science got me thinking about the way most of the West Virginia media covers these issues, and that got me thinking about my old buddy Dan Page at The State Journal.

It wasn’t surprising to see that  Dan was ridiculing the anti-mountaintop removal movement. I wasn’t even really surprised that Dan made a bunch of broad generalizations about the people in this movement, while admitting himself that he didn’t have any facts to back up what he was saying.

For example, Dan admits up front that he’s “seen no analysis of the coal protest movement,” but then concludes anyway that  “many arrived in West Virginia from some other place.” He says, while admitting “I don’t know for sure,” that:

… Many appear to be college students or recent graduates. And I’d bet they have studied English, philosophy, sociology, psychology, art or perhaps journalism. They tend to be liberal arts majors who have given a lot of thought to just how their world could be a better place if we just quit mining and burning coal.

What did surprise me about Dan’s column this week was that he argued for embracing science. The headline itself declared, “More than dreams, we need science.” He opines:

The anti-coal movement is long on emotions and short on science. This army of liberal arts majors promotes dreams but offers no answers. Their crusade of good intentions is hollow because it provides criticism and no solutions. Where is their science? Where is their research that can produce the answers they say they want?

Most regular readers of Dan’s column probably had no idea that he was so interested in science. I sure didn’t.

If he were, perhaps Dan would have written about the growing scientific consensus that shows forests, water and community health are threatened by mining practices.  In the State Journal’s defense, reporter Pam Kasey there does a fantastic job covering many environmental and energy issues, including mountaintop removal and climate change. But his own newspaper’s stories never seem to inform Dan’s opinion writing.

(more…)

Share|

Posted in Climate science, Media coverage, Mountaintop Removal | 11 Comments »

New NOAA report: The world IS warming

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

This just in from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA:

The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

… The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape. These conditions are consistently warmer, and some areas are likely to see more extreme events like severe drought, torrential rain and violent storms.


Share|

Posted in Climate science | 6 Comments »

New National Academy of Sciences report: Emissions cuts needed soon to stem global warming

Friday, July 16, 2010

A major new report out this morning from the National Academy of Sciences has some important findings for West Virginia leaders – such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller — who aren’t in any hurry to put a limit on greenhouse gas emissions.

The headline on the academy’s National Research Council news release sums it up well: “Near-term emissions choices could lock in climate changes for centuries to millennia.” According to the release:

Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia, says a new report from the National Research Council. Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.

Here’s an example:

Currently the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 390 parts per million volume (ppmv), the highest level in at least 800,000 years. Depending on emissions rates, that level could double or nearly triple by the end of the century, greatly amplifying future human impacts on climate, the report says.

Because the amount of human-caused CO2 emissions already far exceeds the amount that can be removed through natural carbon “sinks” such as oceans, keeping emissions rates the same will not stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if emissions held steady, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would increase, much like the water level in a bathtub when water is coming in faster than it is draining. Emissions reductions larger than about 80 percent, relative to whatever peak global emissions rate may be reached, would be required to approximately stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations for a century or so at any chosen target level.

Further, stabilizing atmospheric concentrations does not mean that temperatures will stabilize immediately. Warming that occurs in response to a given increase in the CO2 concentration is only about half the total warming that will ultimately occur. For example, if the CO2 concentration stabilizes at 550 ppmv, the Earth would warm about 1.6 C on the way to that level; but even after the CO2 level stabilizes, the warming would continue to grow in the following decades and centuries, reaching a best-estimate global “equilibrium” warming of about 3 C (5.4 F). Waiting to observe impacts before choosing a stabilization target would therefore imply a lock-in to about twice as much eventual crop loss, rainfall changes, and other impacts that increase with warming.

The report’s executive summary is here, and the entire report is available here.

Share|

Posted in Climate policy, Climate science | 4 Comments »

Sen. Robert C. Byrd: America needs ‘a major new energy policy’ with ‘transformative new investments’ in the future of West Virginia

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Here is a longer statement that Sen. Robert C. Byrd entered into the Congressional Record as part of last week’s debate on the Murkowski climate change resolution:

Mr. President, anyone who has opened a newspaper or turned on a radio in West Virginia recently is aware of the ongoing discussion about the future of the coal and manufacturing industries. There is no doubt that the West Virginia coal industry and many West Virginia workers have been dealt a difficult hand over the past ten years, and are indeed facing some uncertainty about their futures. Such uncertainty is a pressing public concern for our State–and for many other States–and Senator Murkowski has sought to propose a resolution that she evidently feels would respond to those concerns. However, we need to do something other than hold a political vote on the Murkowski resolution, which has zero prospect of enactment, and which would not alleviate uncertainty about the future even if it did pass the Senate. The Murkowski resolution would only foster confusion. I believe that the best and most practical course of action is for the Senate to pass a bill that provides certainty and real answers for West Virginians and all Americans–a bill that will be passed by the Congress and signed by the President before new requirements that would broadly affect our economy are imposed by regulation.

I understand that the Senate Democratic leadership is willing to move forward on a bill that pre-empts EPA action, and can win 60 votes in the Senate, be approved by the House, and be signed by the President into law. Senator Rockefeller recently proposed legislation to provide a temporary pre-emption of EPA. I know that I am joined by many others in West Virginia in my belief that the Senate find a way to accomplish that objective–an objective that I know Senator Rockefeller and I both share.

I have recently secured commitments from my fellow Senators to provide on the order of $2 billion for each major power plant that installs clean coal technology during the coming decades–with additional funding available to larger projects. I am also negotiating a commitment to provide the West Virginia region with billions more annually to strengthen new and existing regional businesses, to complete the construction of better highways, and to provide other critical investments to ensure that the next generation of West Virginians will have a bright future at home in the Mountain State. President Obama has also assured me of his ongoing support for these priorities of mine.

The way to ensure that we make these transformative new investments in the future of West Virginia, and in the Appalachian coal industry, is for Congress to do the difficult work of enacting the necessary policies. The Murkowski resolution does not accomplish that objective, and it may even undercut our ability to achieve it. The resolution is an open-ended denunciation of many leading scientific studies and regulatory initiatives. Were it to be enacted, the resolution could actually hamper important Federal initiatives–including rules that will assist in the deployment of clean coal technologies like carbon capture and storage. I also note that the Murkowski resolution is being considered by the Senate via an unusual legislative process that constrains debate and prohibits Senators from offering amendments.

As I have said before, to deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say “deal me out” of the future. But we have also allowed ourselves to ignore other realities. It is a simple fact that the costs of producing and consuming Central Appalachian coal continue to rise rapidly. Older coal-fired powerplants are being closed down, and they appear unlikely to be replaced by new coal plants unless we very soon adopt several major changes in federal energy policy. In 2009, American power companies generated less of their electricity from coal than they have at any other time in recent memory. In the last month alone, two major power companies have reportedly announced that they will idle or permanently close over a dozen coal-fired powerplant units that have consumed millions of tons of West Virginia coal in recent years. Moreover, an even larger portion of America’s aging fleet of coal-fired powerplants could be at risk of being permanently closed in the coming years–and the ability to sell coal in those markets could be lost for an indefinite period, if there is no new Federal energy policy to support the construction of new coal plants.

Some companies may feel that it is helpful for Congress to go on denouncing a new energy policy that makes it once more attractive to build new coal plants. But those companies are taking this opportunity to invest in natural gas, or other types of investments. They are not thinking about fighting for the longer term future of coal jobs and other jobs in West Virginia. I am. In the meantime, what happens to the miners, other workers, local governments, and many West Virginia citizens during the course of further delay on a new energy bill? They continue to be laid off, and to struggle with insufficient revenue, and to remain frustrated about their uncertain future.

So, there is a long list of compelling reasons to oppose this resolution, and a rather short list of reasons to support it. For the sake of West Virginia’s best interests, and the vital longer-term interests of our Nation and our world, the Senate must now move promptly to take responsible, decisive, and effective action on a moderate but major new energy policy.


Share|

Posted in Climate policy, Climate science, Congress, Politics | 6 Comments »

Sen. Byrd: A vote for Murkowski resolution is a vote ‘to dismiss scientific facts’ about climate change

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Here is Sen. Robert C. Byrd’s statement explaining his vote against the Murkowski greenhouse gas resolution:

“I believe that the measure that we are being asked to vote upon today is extreme. The Murkowski Resolution before us today is being presented to the Senate in a most unusual fashion. A “Disapproval Resolution” limits this great institution’s ability to conduct an open and thorough debate. This measure prohibits Senators from offering amendments. For those keeping score at home, in this political climate, it is usually the members of the minority party who are blasting the majority party for not allowing amendments on any and every measure that is brought to the Senate floor for debate. Yet, the Resolution offered by Senator Murkowski, a member of the minority party, with co-sponsors who are mostly members of the minority party, suppresses debate on this very important topic.”

“Now, I would be the first one to argue in this chamber that it is the members of the legislative branch who should be setting policy concerning the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. We should be doing that. If we are serious about addressing this issue, all of us in this body should, in a bipartisan manner, debate and move forward as soon as possible on a comprehensive energy policy, including a discussion of climate change issues.”

“The Senate owes it to the American people to do something other than hold a political vote on the Murkowski “Disapproval Resolution,” which has zero prospects for enactment. Even if it did pass the Senate, the House Leadership has indicated that it would not bring it to the floor for a vote, and the President has issued a veto threat. Even if it did pass, it would not alleviate our well-founded uncertainty about the future.”

“Many leaders in Congress and around the Nation have been hard at work for the past several years in designing federal energy legislation that will ensure a better future for America’s coal miners and other workers, while also making long-overdue investments in new, high-growth American industries.”

“The Congress should be debating a new energy policy that makes the best possible use of our abundant coal reserves while transitioning America into a position less dependent on foreign oil, less beholden to the special interests of giant multi-national corporations, and more responsive and proactive in meeting Americans’ desire for cleaner and more abundant sources of energy. I understand that the Senate Democratic Leadership is willing to move forward on an energy bill that includes a clear-cut pre-emption for action by the Environmental Protection Agency.”

(more…)

Share|

Posted in Climate policy, Climate science, Congress, Politics | 9 Comments »

Sen. Rockefeller on climate change rules: ‘I don’t want EPA turning out the lights on America’

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., just finished his Senate floor speech a few minutes ago, offering his reasons for voting in favor of a resolution that attempts to revoke an EPA finding that greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to public health and welfare.

The floor debate is continuing, but I’m told that West Virginia’s senior Senator, Robert C. Byrd, will not speak on the floor and has still not decided how he will vote. You can watch the debate live on C-Span here.

We’ve previously addressed Rockefeller’s stance (here, here and here) and explained how the resolution by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, would overturn EPA’s simple backing of the great weight of evidence about the size of the problem climate change presents for our society.

While voting in favor of that measure, Sen. Rockefeller insisted:

I’m not hear to deny or bicker fruitlessly about science, as some would suggest. I think the science is correct, but that doesn’t in one iota deter my support for the Murkowski resolution.

I care deeply about this earth, and I resent anyone who suggests otherwise about me or about the people of my state.

(more…)

Share|

Posted in Climate policy, Climate science, Congress, Politics | 7 Comments »

Three new National Academies studies show strong evidence of climate change, need for action

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Three new studies were issued today by the National Academies emphasizing why the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. The reports, by the Research Council, the operating arm of  the National Academy of Sciencies and the National Academy of Engineering, are part of a congressionally requested suite of five studies known as America’s Climate Choices.

Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, said today:

These reports show that the state of climate change science is strong. But the nation also needs the scientific community to expand upon its understanding of why climate change is happening, and focus also on when and where the most severe impacts will occur and what we can do to respond.


Perhaps most important for readers in the coalfields — where some in  the industry continues to push the line that climate change isn’t real or is some made-up hoax — is the first of the reports, which describes the compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities. That conclusion, the report finds, is based on a strong, credible body of evidence. As the National Academies described in a press release:
While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never “closed,” the report emphasizes that multiple lines of evidence support scientific understanding of climate change. The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

The report itself says:

Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems.

(more…)

Share|

Posted in Climate policy, Climate science | 5 Comments »

Time for another science lesson for Don Surber

Monday, March 22, 2010

When last we left the Daily Mail’s Don Surber, he was having a hard time understanding fractions. See Basic climate science update: Debunking Don Surber.

Over the weekend, Don chimed in with more disinformation about climate change, in a column headlined “What should our temperature be? Let’s examine the evidence of global warmth.” The problem is, the column does anything but examine scientific evidence, and at the end devolves into some kind of anti-tax thing that has nothing to do with climate science.

As I’ve written before, I promised myself when I started Coal Tattoo that I wouldn’t spend too much time debunking the Daily Mail’s coverage of these important issues. So, I’ll just address a couple of the things Don wrote here, and then we can all move on.

First, Don asks, “Are not global temperatures cyclical?” and he continues:

There is evidence that global temperatures may have been higher 800 to 1,300 years ago. One of the climatologists implicated in the Climategate scandal, in which countervailing data was suppressed, has admitted that this could be true, although he limited it to the Northern Hemisphere.

OK, now Don offers no evidence whatsoever that any “data was suppressed” by anybody. And in fact, the evidence shows otherwise.

But to Don’s larger point, about whether global temperatures are cyclical. This is a common climate skeptic argument to write off this issue as just evidence of a global temperature cycle,  but that’s just not correct. As this study shows, warming during the period Don cites appears to have been regional, rather than global, in nature, and to have been sporadic rather than continuous.

(more…)

Share|

Posted in Climate science, Media coverage | 8 Comments »

Important new study details mountaintop removal coal mining’s huge carbon footprint

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

I just got done reading a fascinating new paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology.

It’s a real eye-opener about the relationship between mountaintop removal coal mining and global warming. The paper, Terrestrial Carbon Disturbances from Mountaintop Mining Increases Lifecycle Emissions for Clean Coal, is available online here. A subscription is required to read the whole thing, but you can see the abstract (a summary) for free.

Written by James F. Fox of the University of Kentucky and J. Elliott Campbell of the University of California, Merced, the paper leaves no doubt that, even if CCS works and is widely deployed, questions will remain about the climate change impacts of mountaintop removal.

How so? Well, Fox and Campbell attempted to quantify the carbon dioxide released by the huge land disturbance involved in blowing up a mountaintop to get at the coal underneath. They concluded:

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the life-cycle emissions of coal production for MCM [Mountaintop Coal Mining] methods were found to be quite significant when considering the potential terrestrial source.

In fact, this paper reports that mountaintop removal’s life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions are 17 percent greater if you include carbon dioxide from sources other than the actual burning of the coal — emissions from cutting down and burning forests, potential release of carbon previously locked up in the soils of the mountains, and from mining and transportation equipment.

That’s the potential high-end of those emissions if you assume coal is burned in a conventional power plant.

If the industry switches to CCS-equipped plants that capture most of the emissions from coal-burning, then these other carbon dioxide sources would actually account for nearly twice the emissions of coal burning.

As the paper explains:

Notwithstanding the importance of CCS efforts to improve the imprint of coal burning on the environment, the life-cycle emissions also should be further investigated and quantified to determine their significance under coal production scenarios.

In both cases, the current combustion practices and future CCS goals, the terrestrial carbon storage impacted by the disturbance of MCM is shown to be significant. It is argued here that the terrestrial carbon impact be included in the ongoing discussion of coal mining life-cycle emissions and be considered when discussing energy production and environmental sustainability.

(more…)

Share|

Posted in Climate science, Coal pollution, Strip mine science | 7 Comments »

Climate science update: One key way the IPCC lowballed its estimates

Friday, March 12, 2010

greenlandicesheet

The melting of the Greenland ice sheet, above, from higher temperatures is among the climate change effects that could prompt sea levels around the world to rise.

Judging from the comments to my previous post, Why won’t W.Va. political leaders educate the public about climate change science? there are a lot of climate change skeptics and deniers among Coal Tattoo’s readership here in the coalfields.

That’s understandable, given the terrible job local media and political leaders do in trying to explain the issue. And of course, lots of those readers seem to get much of their information from Fox News or the Wall Street Journal, hardly reliable sources for scientific information about global warming or coal.

So I thought I would point out a great piece out this week on the blog RealClimate, which is produced by working climate scientists – actual experts in the field we’re talking about.

The piece is headlined, Sealevelgate, and it explains one great example of how reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change actually lowball — not overstate, as skeptics would have us believe — many of the scientific findings about global warming and its potential impacts.

The focus in on the findings in the most recent IPCC report that predicted up to 59 cm of sea level rise by the end of this century. The problem? Well, read on:

(more…)

Share|

Posted in Climate science | 37 Comments »

Skeptic update: Snowpocalypse vs global warming?

Thursday, February 11, 2010

trainsnow_i100210232604.jpg

Gazette photo by Rusty Marks

Those of you who follow coal issues via Twitter know that we haven’t seen much tweeting late from Coal Tattoo’s old buddy, Gene Kitts of International Coal Group. But Gene showed up last night, lamenting the lack of stories questioning whether the big snow storms are proof that global warming isn’t real. Gene asked:

If “Snowmageddon” was instead a summer heat wave, how many global warming stories would be running? So, why not GW skeptic stories now?

Well, I guess my post a few weeks ago, “It’s cold outside, so there’s no global warming, right?” wasn’t exactly what Gene had in mind.  In that post, I simply passed on some pretty reasonable and easy-to-understand science from the respected group Union of Concerned Scientists:

Recent heavy snow storms and cold weather have prompted some commentators to suggest that a cold winter proves global warming isn’t really happening.

Don’t let those naysayers snow you.

(more…)

Share|

Posted in Climate science, Media coverage | 18 Comments »

Glacier-gate and climate change: What does it all mean?

Thursday, January 21, 2010

himalayanglacier.jpg

This Feb. 1, 2005 file photo shows an aerial view of the Siachen Glacier, which traverses the Himalayan region dividing India and Pakistan, about 750 kilometers (469 miles) northwest of Jammu, India. A U.N. warning that Himalayan glaciers were melting faster than any other place in the world and may be gone by 2035 was not backed up by science, U.N. climate experts said Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2010, an admission that could energize climate change critics. (AP Photo/Channi Anand, file)

I’m sure the climate change skeptics who are loyal Coal Tattoo readers are closely watching the developing story over problems with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report and the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

If you missed it, there’s coverage everywhere: The New York Times,  National Public Radio, CNN, the Guardian … take your pick of media outlets, and they’ve probably covered this.

My buddy Seth Borenstein at The Associated Press led his story this way:

Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world’s most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologize and promise to be more careful.

The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 – hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates. The year 2350 apparently was transposed as 2035.

But importantly, Seth added:

The climate panel and even the scientist who publicized the errors said they are not significant in comparison to the entire report, nor were they intentional. And they do not negate the fact that worldwide, glaciers are melting faster than ever.

(more…)

Share|

Posted in Climate science, Media coverage | 7 Comments »

« Older Entries