Joseph J. Romm's Blog, page 149

GOP House Leaders Create ‘Action Group’ To Seize And Sell America’s Public Lands

[image error]

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, is leading the group.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Rick Bowmer

A group of Republican congressmen this week took an aggressive step in a campaign to seize and sell off America’s national forests and other public lands.

In launching what they are calling the “Federal Land Action Group,” Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) plan to develop a legislative framework for giving states control of America’s public lands. Calling the federal government a “lousy landlord for western states,” Rep. Stewart said “we simply think the states can do it better.”

Bishop, who is also chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, said that “this group will explore legal and historical background in order to determine the best congressional action needed to return these lands back to the rightful owners.”

This latest effort to transfer or dispose of national forests and public lands was immediately blasted by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee, as being unwise, unpopular, and illegal.

“Building on the ideas of extremists like Cliven Bundy, House Republicans have formed a group to explore the idea that if you see a federal resource you like, maybe you can just take it,” said Grijalva in a statement. “There is no legal authority to give these lands away to developers and no chance the American people will support such a scheme.”

In addition to Bishop and Stewart, the group’s “Congressional team” includes Representatives Mark Amodei (R-NV), Diane Black (R-TN), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Cresent Hardy (R-NV), and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). Bishop, who has long advocated for state seizure of America’s national forests and other public lands, has recently found more creative ways of pushing his Cliven Bundy-inspired agenda forward.

Earlier this week, Bishop attached a provision to a defense spending bill to delay the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from protecting the greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act for at least 10 years. In addition to putting the bird at high risk of extinction, the measure would turn over management authority of 60 million acres of the bird’s habitat on U.S. public lands to individual states — an area 27 times the size Yellowstone National Park.

In a letter to House leaders, 26 environmental groups called the provision a “brazen power grab of federal lands.”

Rep. Bishop and his “Federal Land Action Group” are not alone in their efforts to seize and sell America’s public lands. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Lisa Murkowski, have been vocal proponents of such proposals in the U.S. Senate. Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) also recently introduced the “American Land Act,” which would force the Department of the Interior to sell one-third of the land managed by the National Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, and use the “potentially billions” of dollars in revenue for transportation infrastructure.

Despite being considered unconstitutional by legal scholars, similar proposals to seize control of America’s public lands have been introduced by right-wing lawmakers in eleven western states — Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming and Washington.

Thanks to support from the Koch-backed American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and front groups for the oil industry’s PR giant, Richard Berman, as well as increasing lobbying by the Utah-based American Lands Council, these proposals have now gained prominence at the national level.

Even with the increase in activity, bipartisan public opinion research has shown that Western voters from all political parties oppose these proposals, and believe that transferring control of public lands to state governments would result in reduced access for recreation, and the lands being sold off to the highest bidder to cover extreme costs of management.

Nonetheless, Representatives Bishop and Stewart are moving forward with the Action Group as a “starting point,” and plan to hold a series of forums “with the goal of introducing transfer legislation.” No timeline has been announced for the forums or the group’s next steps.

Claire Moser is the Research and Advocacy Associate with the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress. You can follow her on Twitter at @Claire_Moser.

The post GOP House Leaders Create ‘Action Group’ To Seize And Sell America’s Public Lands appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Tesla Announces New Product To ‘Fundamentally Change The Way The World Uses Energy’

[image error]

Tesla’s newest product “Powerwall” stores energy for residential use — or for charging your electric car.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Ringo H.W. Chiu

Tesla, beloved car manufacturer, auto industry disruptor, and brainchild of a genius, officially announced plans late Thursday night in California to offer home and business batteries to the market.

The residential battery, called the Powerwall, is available to installers in 10 kilowatt hours (kWh) or 7kWh sized at $3,500 and $3,000, respectively, and is available online now. The business version is not yet available.

In a Tweet on Wednesday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk referred to batteries as “The Missing Piece” in order “for the future to be good.”

Energy storage is seen as a key to expanding the use of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Without energy storage, grid operators have to put out the exact amount of electricity that people are using every moment of the day. When you flip the lights on in your house, grid operators have to make sure there is enough electricity available for you to take. When you shut off your air conditioner, they have to scale back to avoid overloading the grid.

Utilities across the country already use some battery storage to help manage the electrical grid. On a smaller scall there is also some residential and commercial energy storage on the market.

But as more and more solar and wind power enter the grid, batteries are becoming more and more important. Intermittent energy sources like solar and wind only provide power at certain times of the day. That can make it hard for grid operators to balance energy going onto the grid with energy being used. Utilities’ inability to balance production and demand is one of the biggest argument’s against increasing the use of renewable energy, but Tesla’s announcement could be a huge blow to that argument.

“Our goal is to fundamentally change the way the world uses energy,” Musk told reporters.

After turning a profit for the first time in 2013, paying back a nearly a half-billion loan from the Department of Energy, and now constructing a “gigafactory” in Nevada, Tesla is something of darling for media, business, and renewable-energy enthusiasts. Musk has been straightforward about his vision for the future, telling the Wall Street Journal last year, “the reason I created Tesla was to accelerate the transition to sustainable transport. And I made that clear to investors.”

Investors have known that Thursday’s announcement was coming for some time. In developing its flagship electric car, Tesla’s research has been instrumental in creating more efficient, more compact batteries. Putting those batteries onto the grid is the natural next step.

Musk referred to the announcement as an “unveiling,” but in fact the Tesla prototype has already been installed in at least 300 Californian homes, under a pilot program with SolarCity, a company that mainly specializes in leased, residential solar systems. SolarCity was started by Musk’s cousin, Lyndon Rive, and Musk is the company’s chairman and largest shareholder.

Musk has said that SolarCity will pair all its solar installations with battery backup within the next 10 years.

“It really is the next big thing,” SolarCity spokesman Will Craven told ThinkProgress. “It may not be long before everyone has this sort of futuristic battery in their garage.”

While there is some debate over whether it will make financial sense for many homeowners to install battery storage, there is no question that batteries are already beginning to save money and strengthen the grid in some areas. The three largest investor-owned utilities in California are required to install 1.3 gigawatts (GW) of battery storage by 2020. California has more solar installed than any other state, and solar has produced a record-breaking nearly 20 percent of the state’s power on some days.

Boosted by huge growth in solar and wind power, demand for energy storage is expected to go from 0.34 GW installed in 2012 and 2013 to 6 GW in 2017 and more than 40 GW by 2022, according to the Energy Storage Association.

In the recently released Quadrennial Energy Review, the Department of Energy called out battery storage as a necessary component of America’s energy future. Battery storage was listed as one of the United States’ “available energy sources and technologies that will help meet its climate change goals.”

Meeting climate change goals will depend largely on our ability to move away from high-emission electricity sources. The electricity sector accounts for about 30 percent of the United States’ carbon emissions — and more than three quarters of that comes from coal. The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan seeks to limit carbon emissions from power plants, which some expect will push even greater renewable energy development.

The post Tesla Announces New Product To ‘Fundamentally Change The Way The World Uses Energy’ appeared first on ThinkProgress.

ALEC-Tied Politicians Push North Carolina To Gut Its Environmental Protection Act

[image error]

A proposed bill in North Carolina would allow state-funded projects to skirt environmental assessments.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Randall Hill

It only took two weeks for the Republican-led House in North Carolina to introduce and pass a bill gutting the state’s environmental law.

The House passed the SEPA Reform Act on Wednesday after allowing total of one minute of public comment. Two of the three bill sponsors have ties to the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council.

The bill will largely dismantle the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), opponents say. Under SEPA, a 1971 law to “encourage the wise, productive, and beneficial use of the natural resources of the State without damage to the environment,” any project that uses state funds or state land is subject to an environmental assessment progress. The SEPA Reform Act changes the trigger for review at $10 million of state funds.

But environmental advocates say a $10-million threshold still effectively wipes SEPA off the books, and state representatives know that.

“It was stated on the floor that $10 million would rarely if ever be triggered,” Southern Environmental Law Center senior attorney Mary Maclean Asbill told ThinkProgress.

The proposed bill originally set the threshold at $20 million but was amended to the lower number and the review process for public parks was exempted. Lawmakers also clarified a section that would have created uncertainty for federal grant-funded water programs.

“I still feel that this is a near repeal of SEPA,” Maclean Asbill said in an email.

The bill was sponsored by three Republicans, Rep. John Torbett, Rep. Mike Hager, and Rep. Chris Millis. Both Torbett and Hager have attended ALEC’s Annual Meeting, and Hager was paid $1,000 to speak at an ALEC event. Nationwide, including in Congress, Republicans have introduced a number of bills recently that would repeal environmental protection laws or defund environmental agencies.

Opponents of the bill also said the House process lacked transparency and the bill was not adequately justified. In addition to the rapid progression of the bill through the House, it came with little to no supporting evidence.

There was “no report, no evaluation, no assessment of the [SEPA] program,” Molly Diggins, director of the North Carolina Sierra Club, told ThinkProgress. “Where are the stories of how SEPA has caused a problem? Who has been harmed?”

Diggins said her group is not opposed to the state doing analysis on the effectiveness of the more than 30-year-old law. But, “that’s what should have happened before it was brought to the committee.”

Diggins was the only person who was given time to speak against the bill at a meeting of House Environment Committee last week. She was allowed one minute, and the Committee went on to approve the bill 8-0. No supporters of the bill testified.

The North Carolina Chamber of Commerce is publicly supporting the bill.

“Under current law, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires a review process in addition to federal approval that can add years to the development of new economic opportunities. This lengthy review process exposes businesses to frivolous lawsuits aimed at tying up capital investment projects and impeding job growth,” the group says on its website.

Neither the Chamber nor bill sponsor Rep. John Torbett responded to ThinkProgress’ requests for comment.

The bill will now go to the State Senate for approval.

The post ALEC-Tied Politicians Push North Carolina To Gut Its Environmental Protection Act appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Fracking Wells Could Pollute The Air Hundreds Of Miles Away

CREDIT: AP Photo/Keith Srakocic

Air pollution from hydraulic fracturing operations can likely travel hundreds of miles, even into states with little or no fracking, a new study has found.

The study, published in the journal Atmospheric Environment, looked at hourly measurements of air pollutants like ethane and methane — gases that are found in natural gas — in Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C. between 2010 and 2013. It found that ethane measurements increased by 30 percent between 2010 and 2013 in the region.

The researchers focused on ethane because they couldn’t find enough data for methane emissions during the time period, and ethane is the second-most abundant compound in natural gas. Ethane spikes in Maryland and D.C.’s air isn’t good news for residents of the region: when ethane is breathed in, it can cause nausea, headaches, and dizziness.

But Maryland doesn’t currently allow fracking — former Gov. Martin O’Malley didn’t propose fracking regulations until the end of his term, and the state didn’t have any fracking between 2010 and 2013. So the researchers compared the ethane data to natural gas production in neighboring states atop the Marcellus shale play, including West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. By doing so, the researchers found that the ethane emissions they found in Maryland appeared to be coming from these neighboring states’ natural gas operations.

“As shale natural gas production continues to expand, this increasing trend will continue in downwind regions until more efficient control technologies are applied,” the authors write in the study.

The authors reviewed levels of ethane in Atlanta, Georgia, a city that isn’t downwind of fracking operations, and found no increase in ethane levels between 2010 and 2013. They were also able to rule out other potential sources of the ethane, including natural gas storage fields in nearby Garrett County, Maryland, and vehicles. Neither of these potential sources saw a spike in natural gas use between 2010 and 2013. But, the report notes, Pennsylvania and West Virginia “house thousands of wells responsible for a tenfold increase in natural gas production volumes from 2009 to 2013.”

[image error]

CREDIT: Atmospheric Environment

The study points to the need to keep insterstate pollution in mind when drafting rules on emissions from fracking, one of the study’s authors said in a statement. Methane emissions from fracking aren’t currently regulated in the U.S., but the Environmental Protection Agency introduced a proposed rule earlier this year that aims to cut the emissions.

“What these results mean to me is that we’ve got strong indications that it’s a regional issue,” author Sheryl Ehrman, chemical and biomolecular engineering professor at the University of Maryland, said in a statement. “What we want to do is bring this to people’s attention, advocate for long-term methane monitoring, and promote regional cooperation in monitoring and reducing emissions from natural gas production.”

The study states that, along with ethane, gases like methane and other pollutants could also be traveling across state borders, something that could cause major impacts on air quality and ozone levels in cities downwind of fracking operations.

Other studies have illustrated fracking’s link to air and water pollution. One study of southwestern Pennsylvania fracking wells last year found that the wells released methane at rates 100 to 1,000 times higher than estimates by the EPA. Methane, though shorter-lived once it’s released into the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, is more effective at trapping heat, making it a potent greenhouse gas. A study last year also confirmed that fracking operations have contaminated well water in multiple states, and another found that methane concentration of residential water wells at Pennsylvania homes one mile from fracking wells was six times higher than it was in homes located farther away from wells. The study found that ethane levels were also elevated in water of homes closest to wells.

Health problems, too, have been linked to this pollution: a study last year found higher rates of illness in Pennsylvania households located close to fracking wells than in households farther away.

The post Fracking Wells Could Pollute The Air Hundreds Of Miles Away appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Senators Like Elizabeth Warren Aren’t Leading On Climate Change, Report Says

[image error]

Could Senator Elizabeth Warren be doing more to lead on climate change?

CREDIT: AP

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) might be a favorite of the progressive left, but when it comes to climate change, a new report finds her track record on the issue to be fairly middle-of-the-road. And Warren isn’t the only prominent Democrat lagging behind when it comes to climate action — according to the report, many Senators expected to take positions of leadership in 2017 aren’t leaders for climate action.

The report, released yesterday by the liberal super PAC Climate Hawks Vote, ranked Senate Democrats not just on their voting record, but on their leadership record — a more intangible metric meant to measure how a Senator prioritizes the issue of climate change. Senators with a higher leadership scores are those that are more publicly engaged with climate change, doing things like introducing climate-focused bills, giving climate-focused speeches on the Senate floor, or issuing press releases about climate issues.

The group ranked Senators — all Democrats and three Republicans — on a scale from +100 (for strongest climate leadership) to -100 (for negative climate leadership). Public engagement factors were weighted more heavily than other metrics.

“Our goal is to elect climate hawk leaders — those who prioritize and speak on the climate crisis — not just those who follow leaders’ directions on the rare occasions that climate comes up for a vote and otherwise remain silent,” the report stated.

Topping the list in the 114th Congress with a score of +71 was Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who delivers weekly speeches on climate change on the floor of the Senate (according to the Huffington Post, he gave his 97th speech on the subject Tuesday). In January, Whitehouse introduced an amendment to a bill approving the Keystone XL Pipeline that forced Senate Republicans to go on record stating whether or not they believe climate change to be real. Behind Whitehouse, Sens. Brian Schatz (D-HI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) rounded out the top five.

Sanders, who recently announced that he would seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, actually edged out Whitehouse for the top spot during the 113th Congress, sponsoring 6 bills related to climate change, according to the report. Like Whitehouse, Sanders also introduced an amendment to the Senate’s Keystone XL bill in January, stating that climate change is “already causing severe problems all over the world,” and that “we have a window of opportunity and we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency.”

The average score for the 114th Congress — which takes into account actions through March 31 — was +22.5, but several prominent senators that might assume leadership roles in 2017 were given scores below the Senate average. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) was given a +20, a score lowered by her lack of public engagement on climate change. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who votes in favor of climate change action but rarely leads on the issue, received a +21. Warren, who recently joined the Energy and Natural Resources committee, scored just above-average with a +25.

“Some Senate observers have expected Warren to discuss climate change more this year now that she is on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee,” the report said, “but so far she’s only made one public statement, engaged in minimal press release work, not written any bills, and co-sponsored very few bills.”

Seven Democrats scored negative points, according to Climate Hawk Vote’s metrics. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), a proponent of Keystone XL and coal production, ranked last, with a score of -29. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), who has called President Obama’s action on climate change “a war on America“, was second from the bottom with a score of -26.

As a super PAC, Climate Hawks Vote works toward its goal of electing climate leaders in two ways: maintaining accountability of elected officials through scorecards, and helping to elect those they deem “climate hawks” through endorsements and fieldwork. Endorsements for candidates, the group told ThinkProgress, won’t be decided until this summer.

“We hope that it’ll encourage more politicians to be proactive on climate — speak out and lead on the greatest challenge facing the next few generations of humanity,” the group said of the scorecard. “And when we do our electoral work next year, we’ll prioritize endorsements of those who score well over those who don’t.”

Update
Share



facebook
twitter

A previous version of this article misstated the number of climate-related bills Sanders introduced during the 113th Congress. It was 6 bills, not 19.

The post Senators Like Elizabeth Warren Aren’t Leading On Climate Change, Report Says appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Climate Change Is Already Hurting The World’s Most Consumed Coffee Bean

[image error]

Climate change is coming for your coffee.

CREDIT: Shutterstock

For years, studies have warned that a warmer planet might mean fewer cups of morning coffee — but a new study claims that rising temperatures are already taking their toll on East Africa’s coffee crops.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa, found that Tanzania’s production of Arabica coffee — the most-consumed coffee species in the world — has fallen by 46 percent since 1966. Over the same period of time, the average nighttime temperature in Tanzania increased 1.4 degrees Celsius.

“Everybody is talking about the future,” Alessandro Craparo, a co-author of the study, told ThinkProgress. “But we can show that this has had a massive impact already.”

To understand how climate has been impacting coffee growth, Craparo and his colleagues began by looking for long-term data about coffee yields. In Tanzania, most coffee is grown by small hold farmers who don’t necessarily keep detailed records of their yields and the climate. To circumvent this, the study looked at data from three different sources: the Tanzania Coffee Board, the Tanzanian National Bureau of Statistics, and the agricultural statistics division of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

Using climate and yield data from those sources, the researchers analyzed the impact of climate variables on crop yield. Through statistical analysis, they found that increasing temperature had a negative effect on coffee yields — but the specific interaction between temperature and coffee growth surprised them.

“We’ve always known that high temperatures and low rainfall impact coffee,” Craparo said. “What this study found, and what’s really important, is its nighttime temperatures that are increasing at a rapid rate and having a bigger impact on coffee than what’s happening in the day.”

Arabica coffee is a sensitive plant that needs cool nights in order to thrive. For each 1-degree Celsius rise in nighttime temperatures, the researchers found, Arabica coffee yields declined by an average of 302 pounds of coffee per hectare, almost half of the typical small producer’s entire yield. If trends continue as they have in previous decade, the study says, Arabica yields in Tanzania will drop to around 320 pounds per hectare by 2060.

Coffee is Tanzania’s largest export, and Arabica beans account for about 70 percent of all coffee exported from the country, according to Reuters. Though Tanzania produces less than 1 percent of the world’s Arabica, the country’s coffee industry employs 2.4 million people and accounts for $100 million in profits each year. And even though Tanzania accounts for a relatively small percentage of world production, Craparo says that the studies findings could easily be applied to other regions growing the bean.

“It’s these increasing nighttime temperatures that are really creeping up on everybody,” he said, mentioning places like Brazil and India — both huge producers of Arabica — as potentially at risk of facing the same kinds of declines seen in Tanzania. “Have a look at these countries. Have a look at their regions. It could happen there in the future as well.”

Faced with decreasing yields, Arabica farmers and the national governments that benefit from their products will need to implement adaptation strategies to cope with warmer nighttime temperatures, Craparo said. While most governments have heavily invested in the coffee industry, few have implemented adaptation strategies to help farmers cope with changing conditions.

One immediate adaptation strategy Craparo thinks could be useful would be better management of shade on coffee farms. Shade-grown coffee helps maintain biodiversity on farms, as shading trees provide a habitat for native birds and wildlife. It also benefits the farm’s soil, helping better sequester carbon and prevent soil erosion. But choosing the right type of tree with which to shade the coffee crop is crucial, Craparo says, especially in light of the study’s findings about nighttime temperatures.

Planting the wrong kind of tree — or too many trees — might keep coffee crops shaded during the daytime, but the tree leaves can trap heat at night, artificially driving up nighttime temperatures. To combat this issue, Craparo says that farmers should consider planting trees with high canopies, which can help dissipate heat at night, and focus on pruning the trees they plant, to make sure they don’t cover the coffee crop too completely.

Farmers might also need to consider switching to a hardier species of coffee plant, such as Robusta, the second most popular coffee species in the world. Robusta doesn’t fetch the same price as Arabica — it’s considered inferior in taste and is often used for instant coffee — but it can tolerate changes in climate better than the more desirable Arabica beans.

While farmers can adapt by growing hardier varieties or managing their shade more effectively, Craparo sees the private sector as being equally responsible for finding adaptation strategies for the coffee industry — and he hopes that the study will sound the alarm for companies and countries that haven’t been paying close attention to how climate change is already affecting coffee crops.

“We have actual hard evidence of what happened,” he says of the study, adding that he hopes “it gets the private sector interested enough to do something about it.”

The post Climate Change Is Already Hurting The World’s Most Consumed Coffee Bean appeared first on ThinkProgress.

The Massive New Online Course That Every Climate Science Denier Should Be Very Afraid Of

[image error]

CREDIT: Screenshot/YouTube

What’s the best way to show a climate change denier the error of their ways? A new online course answers this question for the masses.

Hint: it’s not lobbing an endless stream of scientific evidence that proves human-driven climate change. While this approach may be cathartic, telling those who refuse to accept climate science for political, cultural, or ideological reasons over and over that they’re wrong is ineffective at best, and oftentimes counterproductive.

How to make progress in this Sisyphean pursuit then? Cue the new, first-of-its kind climate change denial massive open online course, or MOOC. So far the course, called “Making Sense of Climate Science Denial” has more than 10,000 people from 150 countries signed up to find out not only how to confront climate science deniers more effectively, but the psychological and social drivers behind this denial. The 7-week curriculum, which commenced on April 28, also includes responses to the most pervasive climate change denial myths and the insights into the underlying techniques these anti-science perpetrators most frequently employ.

In the scientific community there is little controversy over the root of climate change, with 97 percent of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming. However in the public the issue is far more muddled with misinformation and fraught with disingenuous objectives. The course attempts to bridge that gap and in doing so, move the discussion around climate change one giant step forward.

The course, also referred to as “Denial101x,” includes interviews with 75 researchers from the U.S., Canada, Australia, and the U.K., including some big names such as Sir David Attenborough. It is being coordinated by John Cook, a fellow at the University of Queensland Global Change Institute Climate Communication and creator of the popular website Skeptical Science.

Once people understand the techniques used to distort the science, they can reconcile the myth with the fact.

In describing the course, Cook writes that in his own research, when he’s “informed strong political conservatives that there’s a scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming, they become less accepting that humans are causing climate change.”

He says you can’t adequately address the issue of climate change denial “without considering the root cause: personal beliefs and ideology driving the rejection of scientific evidence. Attempts at science communication that ignore the potent influence effect of worldview can be futile or even counterproductive.”

So what is the best response?

According to Cook, the answer can be found in “inoculation theory,” a branch of psychology in which misinformation is neutralized by “explaining the fallacy employed by the myth.”

“Once people understand the techniques used to distort the science, they can reconcile the myth with the fact,” writes Cook. Instead of more science, what will help stem the spread of climate denial is debunking misconceptions about the science, an approach that “results in significantly higher learning gains than customary lectures that simply teach the science,” according to Cook.

Inoculation theory works in a similar way to how flu vaccines work: by providing a weak form of the virus. In the course, students will be exposed to “a weak form of science denial” that will inoculate their minds against misinformation.

By taking advantage of the online education opportunities available through MOOCs, Cook and his associates in the course hope that instead of just reaching a few classrooms, they can potentially reach hundreds of thousands of students.

Dan Bedford, a geography professor at Weber State University in Utah, told ThinkProgress that the concept of the MOOC is to equip people with the tools necessary to identify what’s wrong “with all the arguments presented in climate science misinformation” and “move past the manufactured ‘debate’ about climate change.”

Bedford contributes to one lecture in the course, but wrote a 2010 paper called Agnotology as a teaching tool: Learning climate science by studying misinformation that heavily influenced the curriculum. He said that the bottom line is that the MOOC “is important because we’re providing an understanding of how misinformation works, why it’s wrong, and thereby, we hope, helping people to spot it and ward it off.”

Sarah Green, a chemist at Michigan Technological University, told ThinkProgress that “educating people about facts is not sufficient.” Green, who contributed four lectures to the course, said this is especially the case when political or industry groups can “bamboozle them” with easily digestible “pseudo-facts.”

Some of the most common myths that will be dispelled by the course include the “long pause” argument that there hasn’t been any warming since 1998; that global warming is caused by the sun; and that climate impacts will be no big deal, and possibly even beneficial. It will also investigate climate science to some degree in an effort to better understand past climate changes as well as how models predict future climate impacts.

The course also helps differentiate denial, which is a process, from skepticism, which is an intricate part of the scientific method. A real skeptic comes to a conclusion after considering all the evidence, while someone who denies the science discounts any evidence that competes with their beliefs or worldview. In a way, deniers and skeptics are polar opposites.

Keah Schuenemann, an assistant professor of meteorology at Metropolitan State University of Denver and an instructor in the course, told ThinkProgress that she meets numerous people frustrated at the lack of understanding and action on climate change.

“It is these passionate people who I would like to arm with some of the knowledge, critical thinking, and communication skills that I have picked up through years of teaching this topic,” she said. “My true passion stems from wanting to improve science literacy.”

In the introductory video about the course, Cook says the course is necessary “at the most fundamental level” because “a well functioning democracy depends on a well informed public.”

“People have a right to be accurately informed,” he says. “And if the public is being misinformed by people who deny climate science, that has social and environmental consequences.”

The post The Massive New Online Course That Every Climate Science Denier Should Be Very Afraid Of appeared first on ThinkProgress.

No, Flying Is Not Greener Than Driving

[image error]

If you’re truly worried about your carbon footprint, air travel probably isn’t for you.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Tony Dejak

The headline of an article in the Washington Post on Tuesday might have gotten a lot of people excited about the fact that air travel may be more environmentally friendly than driving.

Unfortunately, the analysis out of the University of Michigan featured in Tuesday’s article leads to some false conclusions, according to the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).

The new study, from Michael Sivak of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, says that if you average out the data, flying has become more efficient while driving has become less efficient. The crux of his argument rests on the fact that we are now packed like sardines into planes, which reduces carbon emissions per passenger mile.

Specifically, Sivak found that “the average energy intensity of driving a light duty vehicle, such as a car or SUV, in the United States was 4,211 BTUs (British thermal units) per person mile, while the energy intensity of flying domestically was 2,033 BTUs per person mile.”

Of course, 4,211 is greater than 2,033, so driving must be twice as inefficient as flying, right? (For the record, gasoline and jet fuel have nearly identical CO2/BTU emissions).

Wrong. These numbers aren’t considering the different kinds of trips we make, according to ICCT program director Dan Rutherford. For short trips — like most people’s daily commute — flying isn’t even sensical, much less environmental. For longer trips, where flying might be an option, packing just a few people into a car is going to offer significantly less carbon per person mile than flying will.

The real issue is what question you are trying to answer, Rutherford told ThinkProgress. “All that data is just averaged. He hasn’t really made an attempt to compare competing trips.”

So for those of us interested in keeping a low carbon footprint, what questions really matter? Is it whether you drive to work every day, or whether you fly? How about whether your family will drive to Puerto Rico for vacation, or will they take the train?

Nope, those obviously aren’t the questions. The only sensible comparison between air and car transportation is for trips where both means are viable options.

“What’s the greenest way for me to get to my relatives for Thanksgiving dinner is a very different analysis,” Rutherford said.

The Washington Post takes the research to its furthest conclusion, saying, “If you carpool with a large group of people over a moderate distance — say, driving from D.C. to Detroit for Thanksgiving — you may still beat flying on an energy intensity basis.” (Emphasis added).

That’s wrong. By driving, you will beat flying on an energy intensity basis.

“The average occupancy for vehicle travel is 2.2,” Rutherford said. “Anything above 2.2, you will will get even better numbers for cars.”

Using the averaged data, two people in a car emit roughly the same amount of carbon as they would by flying. If you have three people, driving is about 15 percent more efficient. A family of four in a car cuts their carbon footprint in half over air travel.

In other words, it is true that air travel is less carbon-intense now that more people are fitting on planes. (So the next time you feel the urge to dump your drink on the passenger who reclined in front of you, just remember that your kneecaps are collateral damage in our collective fight to lower our emissions.) But if you are choosing between flying and driving with more than one person — or, even better, in a hybrid car — it’s still more environmentally friendly to pile into the car.

Of course, for people who truly want to cut their emissions, there is another directive here: Take the bus.

[image error]

CREDIT: theicct.org

The post No, Flying Is Not Greener Than Driving appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Senators Approve Bill To Stop EPA From Using ‘Secret Science’

[image error]

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), Senate sponsor of the Secret Science Reform Act.

CREDIT: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

A Senate committee has advanced legislation that would change how the Environmental Protection Agency uses science to craft regulations intended to protect the environment and public health, the Hill reported Tuesday.

On party line votes, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 11-9 to approve the “Secret Science Reform Act,” a bill to prohibit the EPA from using science that includes private data, or data that can’t be easily reproduced. The bill has been pushed strongly by House Republicans for the last two years, but this is the first time it has been advanced by the Senate. It is sponsored by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY).

The purpose of the Secret Science bill, according to its House sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), is to stop “hidden and flawed” science from being the basis of EPA regulations. However, many scientific organizations have disagreed with this characterization.

For example, approximately 50 scientific societies and universities said the bill would prohibit the EPA from using many large-scale public health studies, because their data “could not realistically be reproduced.” In addition, many studies use private medical data, trade secrets, and industry data that cannot legally be made public.

“The legislation may sound reasonable, but it’s actually a cynical attack on the EPA’s ability to do its job,” said Andrew Rosenberg, the director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement. “This bill would make it impossible for the EPA to use many health studies, since they often contain private patient information that can’t and shouldn’t be revealed.”

Republicans in support of the bill have countered that the EPA could still use data within the studies without disclosing personal information or trade secrets. But it wouldn’t be cheap for those studies to meet the bill’s requirements, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO reported last year that the EPA relies on approximately 50,000 scientific studies to craft its regulations per year, and that meeting the goals of the “Secret Science” bill would cost between $10,000 and $30,000 per study.

When the legislation was moving through the House, Democratic opponents called it disingenuous — a perceived play for “transparency” within the EPA, when all Republicans really want is less EPA regulation. Environmentally-minded Senators on Tuesday seemed to agree. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) told the Hill that the bill was “just a joke,” while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — who is expected to announce a Presidential bid on Thursday — reportedly called it “laughable.”

For its part, the White House has already threatened to veto the bill if it does come to President Obama’s desk. Obama made the same threat last year when the House passed a similar bill, but the legislation did not reach the then-Democrat controlled Senate.

Now, a notoriously anti-EPA Republican leading the Senate makes it all the more likely that Obama will have to use his veto pen on the Secret Science Reform Act. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said his top priority is “to try to do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in.”

The post Senators Approve Bill To Stop EPA From Using ‘Secret Science’ appeared first on ThinkProgress.

USDA Secretary: From ‘Not A Scientist’ To Climate Change Advocate

[image error]

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack speaks at the White House.

CREDIT: AP

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack seems to have come a long way on climate change.

In a recent interview with the Detroit Free Press, Vilsack said that he hopes both climate change and genetically modified foods are topics of debate during the upcoming presidential election. Both topics are important to the campaign, he said, in part because they represent a larger issue: the treatment of science in conversations about policy.

“I hope there is a real meaningful opportunity to educate Americans about the important role that science needs to play and whether or not we will continue this war on science on both the right and on the left of the political spectrum,” Vilsack said. “On the right you have climate change deniers and on the left you have people raising issues about GMOs, and the science doesn’t support either one of those positions.”

The interview comes less than a week after the USDA announced a broad set of voluntary initiatives aimed at reducing the agricultural sector’s greenhouse gas emissions — a move that strengthens the department’s commitment to tackling agriculture’s role in climate change. The initiatives include installing some 500 biogas digester plants, meant to curb the livestock sector’s contribution to emissions, adding over 40 million acres of no-till farmland, and encouraging more sustainable grazing by adding 4 million more acres of rotational grazing. If all of the department’s 10 initiatives are implemented, it will mean a 120 million metric ton reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 — enough to offset the emissions created by powering 11 million homes in 2014.

“Farmers, ranchers and forest landowners … have seen firsthand on the ground the growing threat that climate change and increasingly severe weather presents to agricultural production, forestry sources and rural economies,” Vilsack said during the announcement.

But the USDA — and Vilsack — haven’t always been so willing to openly discuss climate change. In 2012, during a press conference about a drought that was impacting 61 percent of the country, Vilsack evaded questions on climate change, refusing to speak to its long-term impact on agriculture.

“I’m not a scientist, so I’m not going to opine as to the cause of this,” Vilsack said when asked about the drought’s connection to climate change, later saying that the USDA’s focus was on “the near term and the immediate,” and that in the long term, research programs and “seed companies” would be useful solutions to extreme weather.

This January, Vilsack again shied away from talking about climate change, telling reporters at the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual convention that the USDA often refers to climate change as “weather variation” when speaking with farmers. According to Vilsack, farmers are often hesistant to discuss climate change, which can be seen as politically charged, but are more willing to discuss strategies for coping with things like drought, changing growing seasons, and flooding.

“If we try to force these conversations in territory that people are uncomfortable with, when we do that, we end up not having the conversation,” Vilsack said. “I like to find areas that people are comfortable talking about that; I think you advance the cause a bit more effectively that way.”

In a few short months, however, Vilsack seems to have adjusted his stance on forcing a conversation about climate change. His mission for the upcoming presidential election, he told the Detroit Free Press, is to “prompt candidates to talk about” both climate change and genetically modified foods.

“As we enter a presidential campaign,” Vilsack said, “I hope that there is a conversation about science in this debate.”

The post USDA Secretary: From ‘Not A Scientist’ To Climate Change Advocate appeared first on ThinkProgress.