Bolivian president Evo Morales has announced plans to head an alternative climate summit after attendees failed to formalise an agreement to reduce CO2 emissions in Copenhagen last month.
The First World Conference of the People on Climate Change will take place in April in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba.
Further information:
An international team of climate scientists will take a new approach to modeling Earth’s climate future. The next set of models will include, for the first time, tightly linked analyses of greenhouse gas emissions, projections of Earth’s climate, impacts of climate change, and human decision-making. This approach will influence the next international scientific assessment undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Further information:
Climate and clean energy legislation got strong support today from an unlikely source — Frank Luntz, the prominent Republican pollster.
Luntz's firm, The Word Doctors, just finished a national poll of more than 1,000 American voters. He unveiled the results of that poll [PDF] this morning at a news conference with EDF President Fred Krupp and NRG Energy's CEO David Crane.
The bottom line: Americans are eager for Congress to act on climate legislation that would promote energy independence and a healthier environment.
Luntz says:
Americans want their leaders to act on climate change – but not necessarily for the reasons you think. A clear majority of Americans believe climate change is happening. This is true of McCain voters and Obama voters alike.
And even those that don’t still believe it is essential for America to pursue policies that promote energy independence and a cleaner, healthier environment.
(You can play the audio of the entire event at the bottom of this post.)
Here are some of the most interesting results from the poll:
This is the latest in a long line of polls that show Americans want clean energy. But Luntz's reputation as longtime Republican advisor may give this one extra political resonance.
Luntz said his data shows a bipartisan consensus on the issue and provides a road map for getting legislation passed.
EDF's Fred Krupp summed it up:
Frank’s research proves that that no matter who Americans voted for in 2008, in 2010 they want to see Congress act on climate legislation. It’s a national security priority, it’s a crucial means to reduce pollution, and it’s essential to creating permanent American jobs.
Complete audio recording of the news conference.
Further information:
Click the image for a larger view of the ad.
Anyone who doubts that climate legislation has broad-based support should take a close look at a new ad that's running in the Wall Street Journal and Politico.
88 groups put their names — and logos — on the line to call for a bipartisan energy bill.
EDF is a participant of course, along with other environmental groups like NRDC and the Pew Center. But some of the others may surprise you: the Christian Coalition, Michelin, Campbell's, the AFL-CIO, Toyota, Owens Corning, Whirlpool.
The message from all of them:
We believe it's time for Democrats and Republicans to unite behind bi-partisan, national energy and climate legislation that increases our security and limits emissions, as it preserves and creates jobs. It's a question of American leadership.
If you don't have a paper handy, take a closer look at the large and diverse group of clean energy champions here.
Further information:
Journal claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report’s author now says true estimate is still unknown
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
At the time, Siddall said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results“. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.
Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.
Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.
Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said: “It’s one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science.” He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study’s conclusion.
“Retraction is a regular part of the publication process,” he said. “Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances.”
Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.
The paper – entitled “Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change” – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.
In a statement the authors of the paper said: “Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.
“One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes.”
In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for “bringing these issues to our attention”.
Further information:
When I turned on the State of the Union speech last night, I planned to listen very closely so I could hear any mention of a climate and clean energy bill.
Turns out I didn't have to work that hard. President Obama talked about clean energy — and its potential to create jobs — throughout the speech.
Here are some of the most relevant quotes:
We can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow … There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.
We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean energy jobs.
Germany’s not waiting. India’s not waiting … They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.
We need to encourage American innovation … And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year’s investment in clean energy – in the North Carolina company that will create 1200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put 1,000 people to work making solar panels.
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.
I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future – because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.
The speech got a good reception from most environmental groups. EDF's president, Fred Krupp, said this:
President Obama got it right when he said we must pass ‘a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.’ The American people want less imported oil, less pollution, and more jobs – and Congress can deliver all three by passing a real clean energy bill that puts a limit on carbon pollution.
If we're serious about creating jobs, beating the Chinese and Europeans in this new global market, and cutting imported oil, then Congress needs to move forward without delay and pass strong clean energy legislation. A traditional bill that completely exempts big companies from any limits on carbon pollution is a non-starter; it simply will not solve our most pressing national challenges.
With all the divisions in Washington, this is an issue that should unite the two parties. Both nominees in the last presidential election supported limits on carbon pollution, and legislators of both parties are now working to find a bipartisan solution. Americans want Congress find a way to cut imported oil, cut pollution, and create new jobs. Now it's time to get the job done.
Further information:
We thought it unfair that among the Heads of State invited to the Queen’s dinner in Copenhagen, that the representative from the Earths’s Oceans, Forests, and Ice Regions was inexplicably left off the invitation list. So we sent one to crash the party.
Further information:
The latest cover of Rolling Stone magazine didn't feature an indie star or up-and-coming talent. Instead, a simple black background pushed forward the words "YOU IDIOTS: meet the planet's worst enemies" and drew readers' attention to climate change.
The 13-page article went through the latest chapter in climate legislation, without pulling any punches. It called out every major obstacle to climate legislation from the Heritage Foundation's disinformation to the "17 polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming." (Two EDF experts were quoted in the piece as well: our president, Fred Krupp, and chief economist, Dan Dudek.)
While Rolling Stone writer Tim Dickinson captures a lot of the frustration felt in the climate campaign, he misses the mark when it comes to his closing. "The battle over global warming may already be over," he writes. "Where are the crowds marching the streets?" he asks.
We are here.
Well, we may not always be in the streets — but we are in the halls of Congress, pushing for action. And the front lines are packed with some unusual allies — steel-town mayor John Fettterman, companies and labor unions, EDF climate activists (add your voice!), and many more. This week, President Obama, too, reminded Congress that they are not done.
This fight is far from over.
Further information:
The State of the Union is the main topic of conversation this week, but President Obama wasn't the only one who had strong words about climate legislation.
First, 17 U.S. Senators sent a letter to President Obama [PDF ]asking him to put "clean energy and climate legislation capable of creating new economic opportunities" at the top of his list of priorities for this year. The letter says:
Legislation that invests in clean energy and puts a meaningful limit on carbon pollution will be a major job creator.
Obviously, from what we heard Wednesday night, they'll get no argument from the President on that point.
Second, a group of almost three dozen environmental, labor, faith and civic groups called on Senate leaders to avoid the trap of an "energy-only" bill and instead pass strong legislation that includes a cap on carbon pollution.
In a letter to the Senate leaders [PDF], Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the groups — including EDF — say an energy bill alone would be "just more of the same" at a time when our economy needs a new direction.
The letter points out that the U.S. passed major energy-only bills in 2005 and 2007 that haven't done much to stimulate the economy, and says:
Energy and climate legislation must be connected and comprehensive to create the opportunity to build a new clean energy economy that secures our energy supplies, fosters innovation, and creates the new jobs we so desperately need here in the U.S.
One more note: in an earlier post we told you about USCAP's new ad campaign. This week, Peter Molinaro talked to PBS's Judy Woodruff about those ads, USCAP's other work, and why big businesses like his Dow Chemical are pushing for climate and clean energy legislation, in partnership with environmental groups. You can watch that interview on PBS's web site.
Further information:
Like tens of thousands of activists around the globe who have been working so long and so hard for a fair, ambitious and legally binding treaty here at Copenhagen, I was hopeful until the very end that our leaders would act, and produce a climate treaty needed to avoid climate catastrophe.
But the reality has been different.
Further information: