South Capitol Street

The American mainstream media has for the most part overlooked news that the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has been suspended for at least a week after cyberattackers stole millions of dollars worth of EU carbon allowances. Although NPR reported on it this morning-which is how I learned about it.

I don’t know what the thieves will do with the credits, it’s not like you can trade them in for cash. The allowances come with serial numbers, so reslling them is at best problematic.

They appear to be worthless-just like cap and trade schemes.

The blogosphere has for the most part ignored the carbon cool-down, but Bluegrass Pundit found it newsworthy.

Technorati tags: environment news green cap and trade carbon europeeuropa

Marathon Pundit

Guest blogger Andy Rowell of Oil Change International, in a WonkRoom cross-post.

We are on the path to climate chaos, Big Oil has admitted. Both BP and Exxon have conceded that progress on climate change is totally insufficient to stabilize CO2 emissions. Both oil companies have just published their Energy Outlooks, and the outlook looks grim.

In a bleak prognosis for success on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, BP admits in its new Energy Outlook 2030 report, which was published yesterday, that global CO2 emissions from energy will grow an average of 1.2 percent a year through 2030. In total, BP’s chief economist Christof Ruehl predicts “to the best of our knowledge,” CO2 emissions will rise by 27 percent over the next two decades, meaning an increase of about 33bn tons. All this does not bode well for climate change, with even Bob Dudley calling the scenarios a “wake-up call“:

I need to emphasize that this is a projection, not a proposition. It is our dispassionate view of what we believe is most likely to happen on the basis of the evidence. For example, we are not as optimistic as others about progress in reducing carbon emissions. But that doesn’t mean we oppose such progress. As you probably know, BP has a 15 year record of calling for more action from governments, including the wide application of a carbon price. Our base case assumes that countries continue to make some progress on addressing climate change, based on the current and expected level of political commitment. But overall, for me personally, it is a wake-up call, not something any of us would like to see happening.

BP’s estimate is just higher than ExxonMobil, which believes that CO2 emissions will increase by 25 percent in 20 years, which, according to John Vidal, writing in The Guardian, in effect dismisses “hopes that runaway climate change can be arrested and massive loss of life prevented.”

These projections by BP and Exxon scientists are even gloomier the projections of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which projectst that energy-related CO2 emissions will “grow by 16 percent from 2009 to 2035.” Exxon argues that oil will still be king in 2030:

In 2030, fossil fuels remain the predominant energy source, accounting for nearly 80 percent of demand. Oil still leads, but natural gas moves into second place on very strong growth of 1.8% a year on average, particularly because of its position as a favored fuel for power generation. Other energy types – particularly nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels – will grow sharply, albeit from a smaller base. Nuclear and renewable fuels will see strong growth, particularly in the power-generation sector. By 2030, about 40 percent of the world’s electricity will be generated by nuclear and renewable fuels.

BP too has demand for fossil fuels rising: BP’s “base case” — or most likely projection — points to primary energy use growing by nearly 40 percent over the next twenty years, with 93% of the growth coming from non-OECD countries. The BP report argues that world energy growth over the next twenty years is expected to be dominated by emerging economies such as China, India, Russia and Brazil. Natural gas is also expected to be the fastest growing fossil fuel, with coal and oil losing market share as fossil fuels as a whole experience a slow decline in growth, falling from 83 percent to 64 percent. Coal will increase by 1.2 percent per year and by 2030 it is likely to provide virtually as much energy as oil, excluding biofuels.

There is some good news that energy diversification will continue. Between 2010 to 2030 the contribution to energy growth of renewables (solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels) is seen to increase from 5 to 18 percent.

What oil there is left is predominantly under OPEC control. OPEC’s share of global oil production is set to increase to 46%, a position not seen since 1977, the decade that saw the cartel preside over a series of oil shocks and shortages. In fact, 75 percent of all growth in oil reserves over the next two decades is expected to come from OPEC nations, which include Kuwait, Iran, Angola, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Nigeria.

– Andy Rowell writes for Oil Change International’s Price of Oil.

JR:  Of course as much as BP claims it would not like to see continued rapid growth in carbon pollution, the UK’s Independent reported last year, “Oil giant BP today signalled it would press on with a controversial Canadian tar sands project despite facing a showdown with environmental campaigners and shareholders.”

The tar sands are among the most carbon-intensive of replacements for conventional petroleum (see “Tar sands — Still dirty after all these years“):

X-axis is the range of potential resource in billions of barrels. Y-axis is grams of Carbon per MegaJoule of final fuel.

Related Posts:

• BP proves Beyond Petroleum was greenwashing, joins “biggest global warming crime ever seen”
• Memo to all: They ain’t “oil sands.”
• EPA slams State Department tar sands pipeline study

Climate Progress

Our guest blogger is Andy Rowell, writing for Oil Change International’s Price of Oil.

We are on the path to climate chaos, Big Oil has admitted. Both BP and Exxon have conceded that progress on climate change is totally insufficient to stabilize CO2 emissions. Both oil companies have just published their Energy Outlooks, and the outlook looks grim. In a bleak prognosis for success on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, BP admits in its new Energy Outlook 2030 report, which was published yesterday, that global CO2 emissions from energy will grow an average of 1.2 percent a year through 2030. In total, BP’s chief economist Christof Ruehl predicts “to the best of our knowledge,” CO2 emissions will rise by 27 percent over the next two decades, meaning an increase of about 33bn tons. All this does not bode well for climate change, with even Bob Dudley calling the scenarios a “wake-up call“:

I need to emphasize that this is a projection, not a proposition. It is our dispassionate view of what we believe is most likely to happen on the basis of the evidence. For example, we are not as optimistic as others about progress in reducing carbon emissions. But that doesn’t mean we oppose such progress. As you probably know, BP has a 15 year record of calling for more action from governments, including the wide application of a carbon price. Our base case assumes that countries continue to make some progress on addressing climate change, based on the current and expected level of political commitment. But overall, for me personally, it is a wake-up call, not something any of us would like to see happening.

BP’s estimate is just higher than ExxonMobil, which believes that CO2 emissions will increase by 25 percent in 20 years, which, according to John Vidal, writing in the Guardian, in effect dismisses “hopes that runaway climate change can be arrested and massive loss of life prevented.”

These projections by BP and Exxon scientists are even gloomier the projections of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which projectst that energy-related CO2 emissions will “grow by 16 percent from 2009 to 2035.” Exxon argues that oil will still be king in 2030:

In 2030, fossil fuels remain the predominant energy source, accounting for nearly 80 percent of demand. Oil still leads, but natural gas moves into second place on very strong growth of 1.8% a year on average, particularly because of its position as a favored fuel for power generation. Other energy types – particularly nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels – will grow sharply, albeit from a smaller base. Nuclear and renewable fuels will see strong growth, particularly in the power-generation sector. By 2030, about 40 percent of the world’s electricity will be generated by nuclear and renewable fuels.

BP too has demand for fossil fuels rising: BP’s “base case” — or most likely projection — points to primary energy use growing by nearly 40 percent over the next twenty years, with 93% of the growth coming from non-OECD countries. The BP report argues that world energy growth over the next twenty years is expected to be dominated by emerging economies such as China, India, Russia and Brazil. Natural gas is also expected to be the fastest growing fossil fuel, with coal and oil losing market share as fossil fuels as a whole experience a slow decline in growth, falling from 83 percent to 64 percent. Coal will increase by 1.2 percent per year and by 2030 it is likely to provide virtually as much energy as oil, excluding biofuels.

There is some good news that energy diversification will continue. Between 2010 to 2030 the contribution to energy growth of renewables (solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels) is seen to increase from 5 to 18 percent.

What oil there is left is predominantly under OPEC control. OPEC’s share of global oil production is set to increase to 46%, a position not seen since 1977, the decade that saw the cartel preside over a series of oil shocks and shortages. In fact, 75 percent of all growth in oil reserves over the next two decades is expected to come from OPEC nations, which include Kuwait, Iran, Angola, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Nigeria.

Wonk Room

Congressional Review Act might not be an option to fight EPA regs (subs. req’d)

Asked last weekend in a televised interview how he planned to stop U.S. EPA regulation of carbon — rules he says have the potential to inflict serious harm on the economy — House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton mentioned only one specific strategy: using the Congressional Review Act.

What the Michigan Republican did not mention is that the core EPA findings and rules related to carbon mitigation were published more than 60 continuous legislative days ago, making it impossible to nullify them through a resolution of disapproval under that act.

The congressman told Fox News anchor Chris Wallace that a resolution of disapproval offers many advantages over standard legislation, especially because such a resolution can clear the Senate with a simple majority vote of 51.

“There’s also something called the Congressional Review Act, that within 60 days of rules being published, Congress can take this up and with an up-or-down vote, it is filibuster-proof in the Senate,” Upton said. “It has been used before.”

A CRA resolution of disapproval has been used successfully once before, in 2001, to scrap a Department of Labor rule on ergonomics.

But the deadline for using such a resolution has come and gone for most of the EPA climate regulations.

“Certainly, the key rules are already beyond the Congressional Review Act deadline,” said Jeff Holmstead of Bracewell & Giuliani, who served as an assistant administrator of EPA during the George W. Bush years.

EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide and other GHGs endanger human health — which forms the basis for their regulation under the Clean Air Act — was published in December 2009. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) targeted the endangerment finding with a resolution of disapproval in June, aided by a unanimous consent agreement that allowed her to bring the motion to the floor later than would usually be allowed. But the measure fell four votes short in the Senate and never had a serious chance of passing the House or of being signed into law by the president.

The resolution might have had a better chance this year, with Republicans taking control of the House and making major gains in the Senate. Upton even said in his Fox News appearance that he thought a resolution of disapproval could garner enough bipartisan support to overcome a presidential veto.

“Already we’ve seen a number of powerful Democrats indicate that they have real, real qualms about what the EPA is intending to do,” he said.

But support for the resolution is no longer the issue. The endangerment rule was followed in May by the “tailpipe” rule, which adopts new standards for car and light-truck emissions. Those rules support regulation of GHGs from stationary sources such as power plants and manufacturing facilities, as laid out in the so-called tailoring rule published last June.

Upton told E&E Daily yesterday that he understood Congress could not turn back the clock.

Pentagon Must ‘Buy American,’ Barring Chinese Solar Panels

The military authorization law signed by President Obama on Friday contains a little-noticed “Buy American” provision for the Defense Department purchases of solar panels — a provision that is likely to dismay Chinese officials as President Hu Jintao prepares to visit the United States next week.

Although there are many big issues to discuss, including concerns about North Korea, trade and economic matters are certain to be high on the agenda. And while both sides are aiming to keep the discussion positive — the United States is the world’s largest importer and China the largest exporter of goods — simmering resentments over trade in green-energy technologies could be a distraction.

China has emerged as the world’s dominant producer of solar panels in the last two years. It accounted for at least half the world’s production last year, and its market share is rising rapidly. The United States accounts for $ 1.6 billion of the world’s $ 29 billion market for solar panels; market analyses typically have not broken out military sales separately.

The perception that Beijing unfairly subsidizes the Chinese solar industry to the detriment of American companies and other foreign competitors has drawn concern in Congress. The issue of clean-energy subsidies is also at the heart of a trade investigation under way by the Obama administration, which plans to bring a case against China before the World Trade Organization.

Although there are many big issues to discuss, including concerns about North Korea, trade and economic matters are certain to be high on the agenda. And while both sides are aiming to keep the discussion positive — the United States is the world’s largest importer and China the largest exporter of goods — simmering resentments over trade in green-energy technologies could be a distraction.

China has emerged as the world’s dominant producer of solar panels in the last two years. It accounted for at least half the world’s production last year, and its market share is rising rapidly. The United States accounts for $ 1.6 billion of the world’s $ 29 billion market for solar panels; market analyses typically have not broken out military sales separately.

The perception that Beijing unfairly subsidizes the Chinese solar industry to the detriment of American companies and other foreign competitors has drawn concern in Congress. The issue of clean-energy subsidies is also at the heart of a trade investigation under way by the Obama administration, which plans to bring a case against China before the World Trade Organization.

Casualties of Climate Change: Sea-level Rises Could Displace Tens of Millions (Subs. Req’d)

Since the beginning of recorded time, climate-forced migrations have reshaped civilization. Four thousand years ago a prolonged drought and the resulting famine in Canaan drove Jacob and his sons to Egypt, setting the stage for the famous exodus led by Moses. Three millennia later a prolonged dry period and lack of grazing lands helped to push Mongol armies out of Central Asia as far west as Europe, where many settled and intermarried. And in the 20th century the American Dust Bowl, an ecological catastrophe precipitated by drought and compounded by bad land-management policies, displaced 3.5 million people from the Midwest.

Today this age-old story has a new twist. We are entering an era marked by rapid changes in climate brought on by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Anticipated changes include higher rainfall variability, greater frequency of extreme events (such as droughts and floods), sea-level rise, ocean acidification, and long-term shifts in temperature and precipitation—any of which can profoundly disrupt the ecosystems that supply our basic needs. In our more densely settled world, people may be forced from their homes in numbers never seen before.

Alaska pipeline closed, oil prices rise

The Trans Alaska Pipeline was shut for a second day on Sunday because of a leak, with no indication of when it would reopen, sending oil prices higher on fears that a prolonged closure could restrict U.S. supplies.

The leak was discovered at the start of the pipeline in Prudhoe Bay early Saturday, forcing oil companies to cut production to 5 percent of their average 630,000 barrels per day.

The shutdown of one of the United States’ key oil arteries, which carries about 12 percent of the country’s production, is the latest setback for 33-year old pipeline, which is becoming more expensive to maintain as it ages and handles less than a third of the oil it did at its peak in the 1980s.

U.S. crude futures rose about 1.7 percent, to $ 89.50 a barrel in early electronic trading in Asia.

Closures of the pipeline, although short, have provoked criticism of its operators, particularly major owner BP, whose reputation is already at an all-time low after the Gulf of Mexico blow-out last year, causing the largest-ever U.S. oil spill and attracting renewed government scrutiny of the oil production industry.

“This adds to what happened in the Gulf of Mexico at a time when U.S. regulators are still looking at regulations around oil drilling,” said Ben Westmore, commodities analyst at National Australia Bank. “Events like this carry risk around future regulation that could dramatically reduce supply on a more permanent basis than this temporary outage. There is a possibility the risk is pretty substantial for the (oil futures) market.”

The shutdown of the 800-mile (1,280 kilometer) line, which runs from the Prudhoe Bay oilfield to the tanker port of Valdez, has not yet affected shipments, and tankers are being loaded on schedule at Valdez, meaning there is no immediate danger of restricted oil supply. Oil produced during the shutdown will be stored at Prudhoe Bay until the pipeline reopens.

Alyeska Pipeline Service Co, the operator of the pipeline which discovered the leak on Saturday morning, had no estimate of how much oil leaked, but none seems to have escaped beyond concrete encasing the pipeline at the intake pump station at Prudhoe Bay.

“The concrete encasement is why we don’t believe there’s any environmental impact,” said Alyeska spokeswoman Michelle Egan. “Until we can excavate, we won’t be able to say that definitely.”

She provided no estimate of when the pipeline would reopen or when normal oil production could resume.

Green Lobby Weighs ‘Political Realities’ of Energy Policy, Finds ‘Clean Energy Standard’ Isn’t So Bad

The wind industry’s largest trade group a few months ago rejected the idea of a “clean power” mandate on utilities that included nuclear, some coal and natural gas as options. But American Wind Energy has a new opinion today.

With talk starting about an energy bill, the wind influence group finds itself receptive to the policy it previously dismissed.

“We’re open to talking about anything at this point,” said Rob Gramlich, AWEA’s senior vice president of public policy.

The wind industry, along with other energy trade groups and companies, is re-examining its positions on the clean energy standard, or CES, along with other energy issues as it lobbies lawmakers in the new Congress. As advocacy begins, many are reconsidering a policy they had not backed before.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Wednesday he is starting work on a bill that would require utilities to generate a portion of power from clean energy, which would include renewables, nuclear and coal with carbon capture and sequestration. The CES is thought to be more popular with Republicans than the greens-only requirement called the renewable electricity standard, or RES.

At Least Some Politicians Get It

Advocates of federal action to address climate change had little to cheer about in 2010. The prospects may be even grimmer this year, with nearly every important committee chair in the now Republican-controlled House dismissing the threat of global warming or the human contribution to it.

As Congress dawdles and denies, some states are moving forward. Massachusetts recently announced a plan to curb emissions from homes, cars and factories by one-fourth below 1990 levels over 10 years — considerably more aggressive than President Obama’s commitment in Copenhagen to reduce emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels. The plan relies on existing technologies to produce more power from renewable sources like wind, tougher energy-efficiency standards for buildings and more investments in mass transit.

Massachusetts will also benefit from its participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a 2008 agreement among 10 Eastern states, including New York, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. These emissions have already dropped dramatically in the region, in part because utilities have been switching from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas.

The Massachusetts announcement follows California’s approval of a cap-and-trade program requiring 360 large enterprises, including refineries and power plants, to gradually reduce emissions to help achieve a statewide reduction of 15 percent from current levels by 2020 — just under Mr. Obama’s target.

Climate Change May Continue for at Least a Millennium

Climate change may be unstoppable for the next millennium.

Rising carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere will affect the climate for at least another 1,000 years, based on a simulation by researchers at Canada’s University of Victoria and University of Calgary. That will cause the West Antarctic ice sheet to collapse by the year 3000 and raise sea levels by 4 meters (13 feet), it showed.

The study, published online in Nature Geoscience, is the first full climate model to make predictions so far into the future, the Calgary university said in a Jan. 9 statement. Researchers studied the length of time needed to reverse climate-change trends if the world stopped using fossil fuels and putting CO2 in the atmosphere as of 2010 and 2100.

“Ongoing regional changes in temperature and precipitation are significant following a complete cessation of carbon-dioxide emissions in 2100, despite almost constant global mean temperatures,” researchers led by Nathan P. Gillett at the Victoria university said.

The effects’ duration may be related to inertia in world oceans, with parts of the southern Atlantic Ocean beginning to warm only now as a result of CO2 emissions in the previous century, according to the researchers.

“The simulation showed that warming will continue, rather than stop or reverse, on the 1,000-year time scale,” Shawn Marshall, a geography professor at the University of Calgary, said in the statement.

More power to Iowa growing wind power

With all the health problems associated with coal-fired power plants, it is great to see another wind project begin in Iowa. Not only will MidAmerican be bringing new jobs into Iowa, it will also be replacing that much need for coal produced energy. That will help make Iowa a healthier place to live again.

Wind projects are already exporting our wind energy to other states. Expanding that is a good way to increase revenue being brought into the state.

China Sunergy Lands Deal for World’s Largest Solar Roof

China Sunergy (CSUN) has secured a 7 MW solar module supply contract with CEEG (Nanjing) Solar Energy Research Institute, for the Nanjing South Railway Station solar roof project. It’s the world’s largest stand-alone building integrated photovoltaic (”BIPV”) project for one structure and will be one of the most energy efficient public buildings in China. The company announced a big 120MW Italian solar supply deal just a couple weeks ago.

“China Sunergy is delighted to be the module supplier for the ‘largest stand-alone BIPV project in the world,” said Mr. Stephen Zhifang Cai, CEO of China Sunergy. “We are very happy to see our high-quality solar panels being used in this landmark project, which will certainly raise public awareness and appreciation of renewable energy. We look forward to playing an increasingly bigger role in building China’s eco-friendly projects.”

Climate Progress

The Koch family put together the Tea Party movement and has surpassed Exxon Mobil in funding climate science disinformation and clean energy opposition.

This Think Progress cross-post is Part 2 of Lee Fang’s amazing interview with David Koch.

This week, ThinkProgress conducted an impromptu interview with David Koch — one of the richest men in America, co-owner of the conglomerate Koch Industries, and a top financier of right-wing front groups — after we found him leaving the swearing-in ceremony for Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). In the first part of the interview, Koch said that he “admire[s]” the Tea Party movement, and that “the rank and file are just normal people like us.” As ThinkProgress has detailed, Koch operatives orchestrated the first anti-Obama Tea Party protests, channeled Tea Party groups into increasing the Koch’s personal wealth, and organized Tea Parties for Republican campaigns and lobbying drives.

When we tried to speak to Koch — who never said he did not want to talk to us — his employee Tim Phillips, president of Koch’s Americans for Prosperity, tried to push ThinkProgress’ Scott Keyes away and yelled into the camera Keyes was holding. Phillips is a prolific “astroturf” lobbyist who has worked for Jack Abramoff’s forced-abortion sweatshop clients, Enron, and had a hand in an anti-Semitic campaign against Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) first bid for Congress. Despite Phillips’ distractions, Koch answered several of our questions about climate science and global warming.

Asked why Koch’s Americans for Prosperity focuses so much on denying climate change, Koch said it was because “regulating CO2 excessively … really damage[s] the economy.” Koch however was hesitant to answer if he himself believes in climate change. He eventually denied anthropogenic global warming by giving a standard climate denier response: “Climate does fluctuate. It goes from hot to cold. We have ice ages.” However, he simply shrugged when asked if carbon pollution — like the carbon pollution Koch Industries heavily contributes to — affects climate change:

FANG: Why does Americans for Prosperity focus so much on the science of climate change? I’m just curious why they spread so much information that denies the existence of climate, of global warming?

KOCH: Well… I think it’s uh, regulating CO2 excessively is going to put — uh really damage the economy.

FANG: Do you believe in climate change yourself? […] Do you believe in climate change yourself, Mr. Koch?

KOCH: Climate does fluctuate. It goes from hot to cold. We have ice ages.

FANG: But do you believe carbon pollution affects climate change? [Koch shrugs]

Watch it:

It is doubtful that Koch, who was educated at MIT, seriously believes that climate simply “fluctuate[s]” from “hot to cold” (although the exhibit Koch funded at the Smithsonian perpetuates this lie). Rather, Koch understands that his entire business model depends on denying the greatest threat facing the planet.

Koch Industries — the largest private corporation in America — thrives on emitting carbon pollution and other forms of pollution for free. Much of Koch Industries’ $ 120 billion-a-year revenues are derived from burning fossil fuels: oil refineries and pipelines, chemical plants, fertilizer plants, manufacturing factories, and the shipping of coal. Moreover, Koch Industries owns Georgia Pacific, one of the largest timber companies, so Koch also contributes to global warming by decreasing the world’s carbon sink capacity. The National Academy of Sciences, the US Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have all come to the same conclusion: “that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use and the loss of carbon-sink capacity in heavily timbered forests are increasing temperatures and making oceans more acidic.” Corporate documents revealed by ThinkProgress show that Koch Industries explicitly targeted laws to reduce carbon emissions as a threat to Koch’s bottom line.

To boost their profits, Koch is the largest funder of climate change denying organizations and media outlets in the world. For example, Koch bankrolls denier groups like the CATO Institute, Fraser Institute, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, the Manhattan Institute, the Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the State Policy Network, and dozens of others. Not only have Koch fronts instructed Tea Party groups to kill national legislation to address climate change, but Koch groups have been instrumental in pushing climate change-believers out of the Republican Party. As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson has detailed, the vast majority of new Republicans in Congress are “climate zombies.” Koch Industries is so fervently anti-climate science that it recently filed a lawsuit claiming that a belief in global warming damages its reputation.

Koch’s active role in Republican politics and multifaceted propaganda campaigns are almost always tied to Koch Industries’ business interests. Koch’s assistance to then-Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) resulted in special legislation to exempt Koch from prosecution regarding an oil spill, and Koch’s efforts to elect President Bush were rewarded with a virtual pardon of charges related to Koch’s release of carcinogenic chemicals in Texas. Koch groups also worked to derail international climate negotiations in Copenhagen, and Koch-funded groups helped spread the myth that hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit somehow disputed the scientific consensus on climate change.

Of course, Koch’s current war on climate science is not new. As we first reported, Koch’s current campaign to distort the public’s understanding of global warming is a continuation of its campaign in 1990 to spread skepticism about acid rain. However, Koch’s hidden role in the climate denying machine is beginning to unravel.

– Lee Fang, in a Think Progress cross-posted.

Related Post:

• From promoting acid rain to climate denial — over 20 years of David Koch’s polluter front groups
• What we’re up against: Polluter-funded Tea Party climate zombie astroturfing
• Must-see video: Polluter-funded Smithsonian exhibit whitewashes danger of human-caused climate change

• Pollutocrat billionaire David Koch says Tea Party “rank and file are just normal people like us”

Climate Progress

This is Part 2 of a three-part installment of ThinkProgress’ interview with David Koch. Watch Part 1 here.

This week, ThinkProgress conducted an impromptu interview with David Koch — one of the richest men in America, co-owner of the conglomerate Koch Industries, and a top financier of right-wing front groups — after we found him leaving the swearing-in ceremony for Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). In the first part of the interview, Koch said that he “admire[s]” the Tea Party movement, and that “the rank and file are just normal people like us.” As ThinkProgress has detailed, Koch operatives orchestrated the first anti-Obama Tea Party protests, channeled Tea Party groups into increasing the Koch’s personal wealth, and organized Tea Parties for Republican campaigns and lobbying drives.

When we tried to speak to Koch — who never said he did not want to talk to us — his employee Tim Phillips, president of Koch’s Americans for Prosperity, tried to push ThinkProgress’ Scott Keyes away and yelled into the camera Keyes was holding. Phillips is a prolific “astroturf” lobbyist who has worked for Jack Abramoff’s forced-abortion sweatshop clients, Enron, and had a hand in an anti-Semitic campaign against Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) first bid for Congress. Despite Phillips’ distractions, Koch answered several our questions about climate science and global warming.

Asked why Koch’s Americans for Prosperity focuses so much on denying climate change, Koch said it was because “regulating CO2 excessively … really damage[s] the economy.” Koch however was hesitant to answer if he himself believes in climate change. He eventually denied anthropogenic global warming by giving a standard climate denier response: “Climate does fluctuate. It goes from hot to cold. We have ice ages.” However, he simply shrugged when asked if carbon pollution — like the carbon pollution Koch Industries heavily contributes to — affects climate change:

FANG: Why does Americans for Prosperity focus so much on the science of climate change? I’m just curious why they spread so much information that denies the existence of climate, of global warming?

KOCH: Well… I think it’s uh, regulating CO2 excessively is going to put — uh really damage the economy.

FANG: Do you believe in climate change yourself? […] Do you believe in climate change yourself, Mr. Koch?

KOCH: Climate does fluctuate. It goes from hot to cold. We have ice ages.

FANG: But do you believe carbon pollution affects climate change? [Koch shrugs]

Watch it:

It is doubtful that Koch, who was educated at MIT, seriously believes that climate simply “fluctuate[s]” from “hot to cold” (although the exhibit Koch funded at the Smithsonian perpetuates this lie). Rather, Koch understands that his entire business model depends on denying the greatest threat facing the planet.

Koch Industries — the largest private corporation in America — thrives on emitting carbon pollution and other forms of pollution for free. Much of Koch Industries’ $ 120 billion-a-year revenues are derived from burning fossil fuels: oil refineries and pipelines, chemical plants, fertilizer plants, manufacturing factories, and the shipping of coal. Moreover, Koch Industries owns Georgia Pacific, one of the largest timber companies, so Koch also contributes to global warming by decreasing the world’s carbon sink capacity. The National Academy of Sciences, the US Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have all come to the same conclusion: “that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use and the loss of carbon-sink capacity in heavily timbered forests are increasing temperatures and making oceans more acidic.” Corporate documents revealed by ThinkProgress show that Koch Industries explicitly targeted laws to reduce carbon emissions as a threat to Koch’s bottom line.

To boost their profits, Koch is the largest funder of climate change denying organizations and media outlets in the world. For example, Koch bankrolls denier groups like the CATO Institute, Fraser Institute, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, the Manhattan Institute, the Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the State Policy Network, and dozens of others. Not only have Koch fronts instructed Tea Party groups to kill national legislation to address climate change, but Koch groups have been instrumental in pushing climate change-believers out of the Republican Party. As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson has detailed, the vast majority of new Republicans in Congress are “climate zombies.” Koch Industries is so fervently anti-climate science that it recently filed a lawsuit claiming that a belief in global warming damages its reputation.

Koch’s active role in Republican politics and multifaceted propaganda campaigns are almost always tied to Koch Industries’ business interests. Koch’s assistance to then-Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) resulted in special legislation to exempt Koch from prosecution regarding an oil spill, and Koch’s efforts to elect President Bush were rewarded with a virtual pardon of charges related to Koch’s release of carcinogenic chemicals in Texas. Koch groups also worked to derail international climate negotiations in Copenhagen, and Koch-funded groups helped spread the myth that hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit somehow disputed the scientific consensus on climate change.

Of course, Koch’s current war on climate science is not new. As we first reported, Koch’s current campaign to distort the public’s understanding of global warming is a continuation of its campaign in 1990 to spread skepticism about acid rain. However, Koch’s hidden role in the climate denying machine is beginning to unravel.

ThinkProgress

Now that John Boehner has become Speaker of the House, it’s worth reposting an extended interview he gave on the subject of energy and climate in April 2009.

Climate Progress

Climate change: Next security threat

Certain senators and the new Republican-controlled House are attacking the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to limit carbon pollution. This is likely to have devastating consequences for our environment and our national security.

Over the past 14 months, Operation Free and thousands of veterans across the country, from every generation, have worked to support a national clean energy policy. The Veterans for American Power tour visited hundreds of communities nationwide, meeting with thousands of Americans to deliver the message that U.S. national security is closely tied to our energy policy.

In Washington, veterans have met with scores of senators to ask for support for a climate and energy policy that reduces dependence on oil.

This oil dependence is among the most dangerous threats to U.S. national security. For years, senior military and intelligence officials have warned that too much of U.S. oil payments eventually trickle down to terrorists, who use it to buy the weapons used against our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Former CIA Director Jim Woolsey said it best: “This [the war on terror] is the first time since the Civil War where we are funding both sides of the war.”

Ignoring all the warnings and security implications, the Senate failed to consider comprehensive climate and energy legislation last session. To make matters worse, Congress will soon consider legislation to strip the EPA of its authority under the Clean Air Act. This would give polluters’ free reign to emit as much carbon pollution as they want, speeding up the effects of climate change and risking national security.

If climate change continues unchecked, we will see millions of people displaced globally, countries destabilized and U.S. troops mobilized to address these new threats.

The Defense Department calls climate change a destabilizing influence and “threat multiplier.” There is no better example of climate change as a destabilizing force than what happened in Pakistan last year. More than one-fifth of Pakistan was flooded by torrential rains and insurgents have pounced on the chaos-created opportunity to turn Pakistan into a breeding ground and safe haven for terrorist activity.

As predicted climate-related calamities occur — including drought and famine in unstable countries like Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — these are also likely to become breeding grounds for terror.

While some senators attempt to move us in the wrong direction, the Obama administration now has an opportunity to steer us back on track. Pushed by a diverse coalition that includes veterans and national security organizations, the EPA recently set new fuel efficiency standards of 60 miles per gallon by 2025.

Sixty miles per gallon by 2025 is an achievable goal that we must attain if we are to reduce dependence on oil and strengthen our national security. It will significantly cut demand for oil and drive prices down.

And by reducing the $ 1 billion a day that the United States spends on importing oil, the new standard would put less money into the pockets of Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his nuclear program and his recently developed “Ambassador of Death” missile. It would also significantly hamper other regimes seeking to do us harm.

Most Americans don’t think about climate change as a national security threat. But we must begin to focus on how it makes us vulnerable in a global context. Thousands of veterans, active duty troops, intelligence professionals and national security experts are doing this every day — and will continue the fight to secure America with clean energy.

It is in our national security interest to do so.

– Jonathan Murray, a Marine veteran, is the former advocacy director for the Truman National Security Project and former campaign director for Operation Free.

Wind’s competitive edge (EnergyBoom):

Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford University professor and the Director of the University’s Atmosphere and Energy Program, co-authored in 2001 a Science Magazine article entitled, “Exploiting Wind Versus Coal.” Jacobson reported then that when the health and environmental costs of coal-based energy are calculated, “the total price for coal-based energy…” ranges from “…$ 0.055 to $ 0.083 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh).” Interesting, since the U.S. Department of Energy reports that as of 2008, top performing wind farms in areas with excellent wind resources had costs averaging only $ 0.059 cents per kWh, a price clearly competitive with, if not far less than, the costs of coal.

So apples to apples, wind power projects don’t cost more than the polluting, all-too-familiar energy sources we’ve come to accept, if only because until recently, American consumers have had few options.

Solar Fuel, With High Efficiency

Concentrated solar radiation enters the reactor, is intensified by a compound parabolic concentrator, and is focused on a cerium oxide cylinder. H2O and CO2 enter side inlets, and O2, H2, and CO exit a bottom outlet.

Researchers have developed a novel thermochemical reactor that uses sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into hydrocarbon-fuel precursors at a relatively high efficiency.

The feat is a key step toward using solar energy to produce much-needed liquid fuels more efficiently than may be possible with alternative methods, such as photocatalysis or microbial fermentation-based hydrocarbon-fuel production.

The new thermochemical reactor is believed to be more efficient than previously developed ones, whose efficiencies could not be comparably measured. And it is amenable to continuous operation, suggesting that an industrial-scale version of the process could be developed for solar towers.

The reactor was designed by solar technology specialist Aldo Steinfeld of ETH, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich; materials scientist Sossina M. Haile of California Institute of Technology; and coworkers (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1197834). It uses concentrated solar energy to thermochemically dissociate CO₂ and H₂O via cerium oxide redox reactions to produce CO and H₂, respectively, with O₂ as a by-product. CO and H₂ form syngas, which can be processed to generate methanol, gasoline, and other liquid fuels.

The reactor’s solar-to-syngas energy conversion efficiency, experimentally measured with a 2-kW prototype, is 0.7 to 0.8%, which Steinfeld says is significantly higher than those of current photocatalytic methods for CO₂ dissociation. A thermodynamic analysis indicates that efficiencies of 16% or more are achievable with the new reactor.

The study’s “solar conversion efficiencies are less than 1%, but these efficiencies set an important benchmark for further improvements in the use of pure solar thermal energy to split CO₂,” notes renewable energy researcher Stuart Licht of George Washington University.

The novelty is the experiment’s relatively large scale, “the number of cycles demonstrated, and performing the demonstration long enough and in such a reproducible and controlled way that the efficiency can be carefully determined,” says thermochemistry specialist James E. Miller of Sandia National Laboratories. “It’s a step toward demonstrating what’s possible for a technology that has been underappreciated and deserves more attention.”

CO2 causing Caribbean coral collapse

Climate Progress

Perhaps because I have been a Physical Chemist for more years than I care to mention, I have the idea that Physical Chemists have something important to contribute to just about any discussion about physical phenomena.  I hope that I can convince you that this is in fact true in the case of global climate change.

I’m reposting some Skeptical Science pieces.  This one is by Hugo Franzen, a physical chemist.
One reason I feel it important to be a spokesman for Physical Chemistry in this arena is because, for the most part, we P. Chemists feel it important to develop math based arguments that catch the essence of what is occurring. Of course we then leave the hard part of dealing with the ramifications to someone else.  What I mean by this in the current discussion is that the problem of global warming can be broken down into two parts – the “forcing” part that deals with the difference between the energy input and output at the earth’s surface and the consequences of that forcing. The latter is the huge problem of the feedbacks and their consequences on the distribution of that energy over the globe.