Climate Crisis Coalition Newsfeed
www.climatecrisiscoalition.org
The Weekend Summary
Sunday, June 1, 2008

Click the highlighted headlines for links to these stories. New stories are headlined in blue. Selections from the week's CCC Daily Newsfeed are headlined in dark red.

Congress Prepares to Debate Climate Bills

Climate Bill Underlines Obstacles to Capping Greenhouse Gases. By Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson, WashPost, June 1, 2008. "When the Senate takes up landmark climate legislation this week, its backers can be sure of just one thing: The obstacles they face show how hard it will be to enact a meaningful cap on greenhouse gases -- probably under the next administration. The next administration, not this one, because even supporters of the complex, extensively negotiated 494-page bill say that there is little chance that it will win Senate approval, less chance that the House will agree on a similar measure and perhaps no chance that President Bust will sign it if it reaches his desk."

Barbara Boxer Asks the Nation for Help in Passing a Strong Climate Bill. BabaraBoxer.com, May 31, 2006, text and audio. "On Saturday, May 31st, Senator Boxer gave the Democratic Radio Address. She spoke about the urgent need for our nation to act on global warming before it's too late... 'Next week, the Senate will begin debate on one of the most important issues of our time -- global warming. Senators have come together across party lines to write a law that will not only enable us to avoid the ravages of unchecked global warming, but will create millions of new jobs and put us on the path to energy independence. Other benefits of our legislation will be cleaner air, energy efficiency, relief for consumers and the alternative energy choices that American families deserve. And, by acting wisely, America will regain the leadership we have lost these past seven years... I truly hope that you will support our efforts on the Senate floor. Please join our fight, and thanks for listening.'"

Drafters of House Climate Bill Contend with Republican Climate Skeptic: Joe Barton. By Dave Michaels, Dallas Morning News, May 31, 2008. "U.S. Rep. Joe Barton [R. Texas, former Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and now] the committee's ranking Republican... remains one of the most outspoken skeptics of global warming... [He] could help shape a global warming bill to the liking of Texas' major industries, especially since he enjoys good relations with leading Democrats on the committee, Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia [who leads a subcommittee drafting the bill] and Rep. John Dingell of Michigan... offers a litany of reasons why the science of global warming is flawed. At several recent hearings, including one last month, Mr. Barton said the models don't account for the role of water vapor, which forms clouds, in controlling temperatures. 'I don't believe the planet is going to be noticeably warmer 100 years from now because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions,' he said. 'So I'm not going to be part of some program that has as a premise that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and we have to do major things to reduce it.' Mr. Barton acknowledges that worldwide average temperatures have increased but has said that isn't worrisome because higher temperatures mean a longer crop-growing season and more rainfall. The planet could safely absorb more carbon dioxide and might even benefit from it, he said."

Conservative Group Hits Senators on Climate Bill. By Jim Kuhnhemn AP, May 27, 2008. "A conservative, free-market advocacy group will begin airing ads this week pressing Senate Republicans and Democrats to vote against [the Lieberman-Warner climate bill]. With $250,000 in radio and television spots, The Club For Growth is targeting Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and Democratic Sens. Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana. Dole, a co-sponsor of the bill, as well as Alexander, Baucus and Rockefeller face re-election this year."

Climate Change Bills Proliferate in Congress. ENS, May 30, 2007. "Congress will consider climate change legislation in a variety of forms next week when legislators return to Washington. Both House and Senate have bills to work with and changes to measures previously introduced... Congressman Edward Markey's [D, Mass.] bill caps pollution at 85 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. It then establishes an auction system that sets a price on carbon dioxide, CO2, emissions, and allows companies to compete for reductions, or buy or trade credits within the system. The measure takes $8 trillion in revenues that Markey expects polluters will pay to emit greenhouse gases over the length of the bill, and reinvests that money back to American families and workers and into promoting a clean energy economy... The Boxer Substitute Amendment to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act allows a declining amount of greenhouse gas emissions between 2012 and 2050, reducing them by about two percent per year from 2005 levels. The amendment would reduce emissions from covered facilities 19 percent below current levels by 2020, and 71 percent by 2050... The amendment sets aside a nearly $800 billion tax relief fund through 2050, which will help consumers in need of assistance related to energy costs."

The Senate's Chance on Warming. Editorial, NYTimes, May 28, 2008. "Next week, the Senate is scheduled to take up [the Lieberman-Warner climate bill]. Mr. Bush, predictably, opposes the bill. Add that to the slim Democratic majority and the complexity of the bill itself, and the chances of getting 60 filibuster-proof votes are modest at best. Even so, a majority vote would create positive momentum for the next Congress and send a strong signal to the country and [to] the world that help on this issue is on the way. For that reason, it is crucial for John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to show up and vote for this bill. All are on record as supporting mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases. A pressing campaign schedule is no excuse for not being counted on an issue this important to the nation's future. The Senate last addressed climate change in 2003 when it cast 43 votes in favor of a bill sponsored by Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman. This bill is even more ambitious. It calls for a 70% reduction in emissions by 2050 -- requiring, in turn, a huge change in the way the country creates, delivers and uses energy."

U.S. Government Reports

Under Court Orders, White House Releases Report Backing Climate Change Warnings. By Margot Roosevelt and Kenneth R. Weiss, LATimes, May 30, 2008. "President Bush's top science advisors issued a comprehensive report [Summary and Findings, PDF 4 pp] Thursday that for the first time endorses what most scientific experts have long asserted: that greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion 'are very likely the single largest cause' of Earth's warming. The 271-page report [Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States, PDF] could undercut opposition to the more aggressive provisions of climate legislation, which is to be debated in the Senate next week. The Bush administration had long resisted a congressional mandate, the 1990 Global Change Research Act, requiring the White House to report every four years on the science and impact of global warming and other environmental forces. A U.S. District Court in August ordered Bush to comply with a 2004 deadline for an updated report, after the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups filed suit... The report by the National Science and Technology Council and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program asserts that natural causes alone cannot explain recent extremes of heat and cold, warming seas and an increase in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes... The warming climate also will accelerate the spread of diseases carried by water, food and insects. Among the most vulnerable people are the young, elderly, frail and poor, the administration's scientists concluded."

New Climate Report Foresees Big Changes. By Andrew C. Revkin, NYTimes, May 28, 2008. "The rise in concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere from human activities is influencing climate patterns and vegetation across the U.S. and will significantly disrupt water supplies, agriculture, forestry and ecosystems for decades, a new federal report, [released on May 27,] says. The changes are unfolding in ways that are likely to produce an uneven national map of harms and benefits... The authors... and some independent experts said the main value of its projections was the level of detail and the high confidence in some conclusions [which] comes in part from... emphasis on the next 25 to 50 years, when shifts in emissions are unlikely to make much of a difference in climate trends... The 203-page report [PDF], The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources and Biodiversity in the United States, is a review of existing studies, including last year's... from the IPCC. It is part of a continuing assessment of lingering questions related to global warming that was initiated in 2003 by Mr. Bush... The West will not only face a dearth of water, but also large shifts in when it is available. Water supplies there will be transformed by mid-century, with mountain snows that provided a steady flow of runoff for irrigation and reservoirs dwindling. That flow will be replaced by rainfall that comes at times and in amounts that make it hard to manage."

International Meetings

U.N. Conference Adopts Moratorium on 'Ocean Fertilization'. By Madeline Chambers, Reuters, May 31, 2008. "Nearly 200 countries agreed yesterday to a moratorium on projects to fight climate change by adding nutrients to the seas to spur growth of carbon-absorbing algae. The surprise deal followed 12 days of haggling at the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity conference where Australia, Brazil and China opposed until the last minute, halting the controversial plans for 'ocean fertilization.' Opponents argue the little-tested process has unknown risks which could threaten marine life, for instance by making the oceans more acidic. Those in favor say it could be a new weapon to fight global warming. German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel, hosting the talks, announced the accord on the final day of the conference at which some 5,000 delegates from 191 countries tried to agree on ways of protecting animal and plant life on earth."

Control of Genetically Engineered Trees a Hot Issue at Bonn U.N. Conference. By Stephen Leahy, IPS, May 29, 2009. "An intense North-South debate over genetically engineered trees has sidetracked delegates at a U.N. conference on biodiversity in Bonn: African nations want a global moratorium, while a few rich countries led by Canada say it should be up to individual countries to regulate. While 168 nations that are part of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) debate the issue, a new two-year U.N.-funded study warns that developing countries simply don't have the capacity to manage or monitor biotechnology... Meanwhile, the biofuels boom has sparked concern that research on genetically engineering trees for use as biofuels is ramping up, with field trials in the U.S., Canada, China, New Zealand and elsewhere. Before the Bonn conference began, 46 environmental groups from two dozen countries called on the government delegates to accept a proposal to suspend all releases of GE trees into the environment 'due to their extreme ecological and social threats'... The risk of interbreeding between GE trees and normal trees is high... Faster growing... trees resistant to common pests could easily become an invasive species and dominate natural forests."

Japan and 51 African Countries, Sign Climate Cooperation Deal. AFP, May 30, 2008. "African leaders at a development summit with Japan pledged Friday to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as part of the fight against global warming... A joint declaration signed by leaders of 51 African nations and Japan said that climate change was an 'urgent challenge' for Africa, considering its vulnerability to droughts and floods... The declaration, which did not mention any more specific reduction target, was reached at a three-day summit in Yokohama at which Japan pledged to double aid an investment to Africa. Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said African leaders he met voiced support for Tokyo's Cool Earth Partnership unveiled earlier this year to help developing countries tackle climate change. The initiative promises to provide 10 billion dollars, largely in low-interest loans, over the next five years to help developing countries address global warming."

G8 Ministers Fail to Provide Hoped-For Breakthrough on 2020 Target. By Joseph Coleman, AP, May 26, 2008. "Under pressure to boost talks on a new global warming pact, [the] Group of Eight environment ministers on Monday endorsed slashing greenhouse gas emissions in half by mid-century, but failed to agree on much more contentious near-term targets. The three-day meeting in Kobe was dominated by calls from the U.N., European countries and developing nations to move forward on setting [2020 emissions] targets... But the ministers from the U.S., Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Canada, Italy and Russia, in a carefully worded statement, mentioned only the need to set such targets eventually. That frustrated environmentalists and some European ministers. 'From a scientific point of view, we need a clear reduction target, because the next 20 years are very vital, very important for climate change and the decisions we make in this process,' said Matthias Machnig, Germany's state minister for environment. The Kobe meeting was meant to set the stage for the G8 summit in Toyako, Japan, in July... 'Kobe gave ministers the opportunity to accelerate the slow progress of G8 climate negotiations, but they failed to send a signal of hope for a breakthrough' at the July summit, said Naoyuki Yamagishi, head of the Climate Change Program at WWF Japan."

The Arctic

Countries Bordering Arctic Say They Will Obey U.N. Rules. By Kim McLaughlin, Reuters, May 29, 2008. "Five Arctic coastal nations agreed on Wednesday to let the U.N. rule on conflicting territorial claims on the region's seabed, which may hold up to one fourth of the world's undiscovered hydrocarbon reserves. 'We affirmed our commitment to the orderly settlement of any possible overlapping claims,' U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told a news conference. Ministers from Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States met in Greenland for a two-day summit to discuss sovereignty over the Arctic Ocean seabed. Under the 1982 U.N. Law of the Sea Convention, coastal states own the seabed beyond existing 200-nautical mile (370-km) zones if it is part of a continental shelf of shallower waters. The rules aim to fix shelves' outer limits on a clear geological basis, but have created a tangle of overlapping Arctic claims. The United States has not yet ratified the convention, but Negroponte urged Congress to do so as soon as possible... 'It is insane to view the crisis of the melting of the Arctic ice simply as an opportunity to carve up the resources that are currently protected under the ice,' Greenpeace Nordic campaigner, Lindsay Keenan, told Reuters... 'They are going to use the law of the sea to carve up the raw materials, but they are ignoring the law of common sense. These are the same fossil fuels that are driving climate change in the first place,' Keenan said."

Large Methane Release Could Cause Abrupt Climate Change As Happened 635 Million Years Ago. Science Daily, May 29, 2008. "An abrupt release of methane about 635 million years ago from ice sheets caused a dramatic shift in climate, triggering a series of events that effectively ended the last 'snowball' ice age. Methane clathrate destabilization acted as a runaway feedback to increased warming, and was the tipping point that ended the last snowball Earth."

Modern Eskimos Not Related to Ancient Artic Inhabitants. NPR, June 1, 2008. "A 3,000-year-old clump of human hair found frozen in Greenland may have solved a scientific mystery: Where did all the ancient Eskimos come from?... By studying that DNA, researchers say they've been able to answer a longstanding question: Are modern Eskimos descended from ancient Native Americans, or did they come from somewhere else? The answer, according to a new study published in the current issue of the journal Science, is somewhere else -- probably eastern Asia... Some current residents of the southern Aleutian Islands and the Chutchi Peninsula of Siberia carry similar DNA... Since they aren't ancestors of Greenland's current Eskimos, Gilbert speculates, these ancient people may have later migrated from the Arctic due to climate changes that made survival difficult."

Taxing and Offsetting Carbon

Poll Indicates Gaining Support for Carbon Tax Across Canada. CanWest, May 26, 2008. "Canadians are warming up to the prospect of paying an environmental tax on activities that cause climate change, but they don't necessarily expect to get the money back in the form of income tax cuts, a new poll has revealed... When told that the government of British Columbia had recently introduced 'a carbon tax on fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,' 72% of those surveyed... said that it was a positive step... The strongest support for a carbon tax appears to come from Quebec and the Atlantic provinces where 81% and 77% of respondents, respectively, said that the B.C. tax was a positive step. The findings come as political parties in Ottawa are publicly feuding over whether an environmental tax would be the best way to fight global warming and protect the earth's ecosystems."

The Big Chill on Carbon Offsets. Editorial, CSMonitor, May 30, 2008. "Before Congress attacks global warming with a cap on greenhouse gases - and then allows firms to pollute if they buy 'carbon offsets' elsewhere -- lawmakers should consult the UN's abysmal record in this slippery type of trading. The UN set up its Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to help companies in industrialized countries invest in projects in poorer nations that cut greenhouse-gas emissions as part of their countries' commitment under the Kyoto Protocol or the European Union's emissions plan... As many as two-thirds of the programs funded contribute nothing new to reducing emissions... As a British investigative journalist put it: 'Offsets are an imaginary commodity created by deducting what you hope happens from what you guess would have happened'... Next week, the US Senate takes up a bill that would impose a cap-and-trade system that includes the buying and selling of licenses to emit carbon... As in Europe, a final bill from Congress will likely allow US companies to buy carbon offsets through CDM or similar groups that claim an expertise in identifying projects that reduce greenhouse gases... No doubt some CDM projects do make real cuts in emissions. But as a whole, the CDM is clearly flawed and needs, at the very least, significant reform. It's one more sign that a cap-and-trade system is a complex and highly suspect way to make emissions cuts. A more honest, reliable course is a simple tax on carbon emissions. The dodges are easier to spot."

Why Not a Carbon Tax? Commentary by George F. Will, WashPost, June 1, 2008. "If carbon emissions are the planetary menace that the political class suddenly says they are, why not a straightforward tax on fossil fuels based on each fuel's carbon content? This would have none of the enormous administrative costs of the baroque cap-and-trade regime. And a carbon tax would avoid the uncertainties inseparable from cap-and-trade's government allocation of emission permits sector by sector, industry by industry. So a carbon tax would be a clear and candid incentive to adopt energy-saving and carbon-minimizing technologies... It would clearly be what cap-and-trade deviously is, a tax, but one with a known cost. Therefore, taxpayers would demand a commensurate reduction of other taxes. Cap-and-trade -- government auctioning permits for businesses to continue to do business -- is a huge tax hidden in a bureaucratic labyrinth of opaque permit transactions."

Climate Skeptics

Case Against Climate Change Discredited by Study. By Steve Connor, London Independent, May 29, 2008. "A difference in the way British and American ships measured the temperature of the ocean during the 1940s may explain why the world appeared to undergo a period of sudden cooling immediately after the Second World War. Scientists believe they can now explain an anomaly in the global temperature record for the twentieth century, which has been used by climate change sceptics to undermine the link between rising temperatures and increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide... Sceptics have argued it supports the idea that rising temperatures have more to do with increased solar activity -- sunspots -- than increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide exacerbating the greenhouse effect... Taking into account the difference in the way of measuring sea-surface temperatures, and the sudden increase in the proportion of British ships taking the measurements after the war, the result was an artificial lowering of the global average temperature by about 0.2C... The study, published in the journal Nature, found that the global average temperatures in the late 1940s stayed roughly the same rather than falling... A similar problem could be occurring now with the move from ship-borne measurements to those from unmanned buoys, which tend to produce slightly lower records. This could explain why global average temperatures in recent years have levelled off."

Climate Skeptics Claim that Most Americans Oppose Lieberman-Warner Bill. Press Release, The National Center for Public Policy Research, May 28, 2008. "Just as the U.S. Senate is poised to vote on the Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act, a new poll finds an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the higher energy costs that [the bill] would impose. The poll, conducted by the Public Opinion and Policy Center of the National Center for Public Policy Research, found that 65% of Americans reject spending even a penny more for gasoline in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The number rejecting raising gas prices in an effort to combat global warming has increased by 17 percentage points -- or 35% -- in just over two months. The National Center conducted a similar survey in late February. An additional 13% oppose spending more than 5% more for gasoline to attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Lieberman-Warner plan would increase petroleum prices by 5.9% by 2015, according to Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Other studies indicate the plan would push prices even higher." [Editors Note: The National Center for Public Policy Research, "A Conservative Think Tank" has received significant funding from Exxon Mobile, and argues again climate measures as skeptics of anthropogenic global warming. CCC believes that their "scientific" poll [PDF 4 pp] was slanted and therefore worthless. It asks people how much more they would be willing to pay more for fuel in the context legislation that would "slow the economy and cost jobs." Arguably effective climate change legislation would create millions of green jobs and have a long-range positive effect on the economy.]

Warming of Earth's Troposphere Confirmed. AFP, May 27, 2008. "Climate change models predicting a dangerous warming of the world's atmosphere got a confirming boost Sunday from a study showing parallel trends at altitudes nearly twice as high as Mount Everest... Over the last two decades, temperature readings from the upper troposphere -- 12 to 16 kilometers (7.5 to 10 miles) above Earth's surface -- based on data gathered by satellites and high-flying weather balloons, showed little or no increase. Oft-cited by climate change skeptics, these findings were known to be flawed but still challenged the validity of computer models predicting warming trends at these altitudes, especially over the tropics. In the new study, climate scientists Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood of Yale University use a more accurate method to show that temperature changes in the upper troposphere since 1970 -- about 0.65 degrees C per decade -- are in fact clearly in sync with most climate change models. Rather than measuring temperature directly, which had yielded inconsistent results, they used wind variations as a proxy."

The Question of Global Warming. By Freeman Dyson, New York Review of Books, June 12, 2008. "The average lifetime of a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere, before it is captured by vegetation and... released, is about 12 years. [The] fact... that the exchange of carbon between atmosphere and vegetation is rapid, is of fundamental importance to the long-range future of global warming... Carbon-eating trees could convert most of the carbon that they absorb... into some chemically stable form and bury it underground. Or they could convert the carbon into liquid fuels and other useful chemicals. Biotechnology is enormously powerful, capable of burying or transforming any molecule of carbon dioxide that comes into its grasp. [The wiggles in Keeling's Curve] prove that a big fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes within the grasp of biotechnology every decade. If one quarter of the world's forests were replanted with carbon-eating varieties of the same species, [they] would be preserved as ecological resources and as habitats for wildlife, and the CO2 in the atmosphere would be reduced by half in about fifty years... Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound... Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is... a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful... Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet... Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including... nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard." Freeman Dyson is a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

Oil

ExxonMobile Chief Vows to Stay the Course. By Claudia Cattaneo,  Financial Post, May 29, 2008. "Rex Tillerson, chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest oil-and-gas company, came out swinging Wednesday against the environmental movement, arguing the science of climate change is far from settled and that his company views it as its "corporate social responsibility" to continue to supply the world with fossil fuels. Speaking to reporters after the annual meeting of shareholders, at which much-publicized proposals by the Rockefeller family calling for new investment in renewable energy [failed to pass], Mr. Tillerson also said he expects little delay in the $8-billion Kearl oilsands project in Alberta, after a court challenge by environmental organizations this month resulted in the withdrawal of a key federal permit, halting important work."

ExxonMobil CEO Prevails at Annual Meeting Over Green Resolutions. By Joe Carroll, Bloomberg, May 28, 2008. "Exxon Mobil Corp. shareholders rejected resolutions calling on the world's largest company to bar its chief executive officer from serving as chairman and adopt greenhouse-gas reduction targets. A proposal to split the CEO and chairman's roles received 39.5 percent at the company's annual meeting on Wednesday in Dallas, less than the 50 percent required to force directors to reconsider their opposition. Initiatives to set pollution-reduction goals for Exxon Mobil refineries and hold non-binding shareholder votes on executive pay also failed. CEO Rex Tillerson prevailed over efforts by descendants of company founder John D. Rockefeller, the California Public Employees' Retirement System and New York City Comptroller William Thompson to curb his influence and speed action by the Irving, Texas-based company to combat global warming... Tillerson, 56, led the company to a $40.6 billion profit in 2007, surpassing its own previous record for annual net income by a U.S. corporation set a year earlier... About 20 activists from Greenpeace and other groups gathered in front of the symphony hall... holding a banner that said 'Oil: The New Black Death.'"

Has Russian Oil Output Peaked? By Fred Weir, CSM, May 28, 2008. "The Kremlin often touts Russia's image as an 'energy superpower,' but now the country's oil production is declining. Some say Russia may have already reached peak oil output... As the world's second-largest oil exporter, Russia joins a growing number of top oil suppliers wrestling with how to address declining or peaking production. Like Venezuela and Mexico, Russia is heavily dependant on oil, which accounts for more than two-thirds of government revenue and 30% of the country's gross domestic product. Now, Moscow is trying to remedy a situation caused in part by outdated technology, heavy taxation of oil profits, and lack of investment in oil infrastructure... After rising steadily for several years to a post-Soviet high of 9.9 million barrels per day in October, Russian oil production fell by 0.3% in the first four months of this year, while exports fell 3.3% -- the first Putin-era drop. Russia's proven oil reserves are a state secret, but Oil & Gas Journal, a U.S.-based industry publication, estimates it has about 60 billion barrels -- the world's eighth largest -- which would last for 17 years at current production rates. Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko recently admitted the decline, but suggested it might be overcome by fresh discoveries in under-explored eastern Siberia or in new Arctic territories recently claimed by Russia."

Black Gold Rush: Boom and Bust and Boom Again in Pennsylvania. By Rupert Cornwell, London Independent, May 27, 2008. "The big energy companies are back in Pennsylvania, seeking oil and, more importantly, gas. Already Pennsylvania has more stripper natural gas wells than any other state, and its proven gas reserves are half the U.S. total. In the woods new wells are being drilled. Farmers who own the 'OMG' (oil, mineral and gas) rights are leasing land to the companies for $2,500/acre/year, compared with $25 a decade ago, and get production royalties on top of that. In five years, production of the waxy, paraffin-rich crude from Pennsylvania's Appalachian basin field has shot up 50% to 3.8 million barrels. But experts reckon that two-thirds of the oil that was there when Drake drilled his way into history is still in the ground. Once it wasn't worth bothering with, but no longer. Rock Well Petroleum, a Canadian company, has plans not only to drill scores of new wells, but to dig huge underground caverns to collect the oil and pump it to the surface. There's just one problem, however: what to do with the brine that comes with the oil, especially from older wells. McClintock No 1, for instance, now delivers 300 barrels of brine for every barrel of oil."

Time Magazine Gushes over Tar Sands. Posted by Bill Becker, Grist, May 28, 2008. "I consider Time to be one of the more forward-looking periodicals when it comes to the environment. But the editors messed up in this week's... June 2 [edition, which] carries a breathless feature about the potential petroleum bonanza in Canada's tar sands. The article's authors are so giddy with the testosterone rush of big-ass earth-moving machines that they forgot what a multifaceted disaster this 'bonanza' would be... 'The mega-projects across Alberta's oil sands rival some of humankind's greatest engineering achievements, including the pyramids of Giza and the Great Wall of China,' [the magazine] gushes... 'Canada may become the new Saudi Arabia, the last great oil kingdom, right on the U.S. border.' Let's pause for a moment, take a deep breath, and think about this... The 'stark' landscape Time describes is Canada's boreal forest... As Exxon pushes for the biggest oil boom in North American history -- and as the melting Arctic ice opens access to vast new oil and gas fields -- it's hard to imagine a more dramatic and critical fork in the road of human progress. One path offers dazzling new riches for oil companies and... tantalizing new frontiers for wildcatters... The other... takes us to a future in which our energy is inexhaustible, our economy is secure, drilling and digging have been phased out in favor of green industries and jobs, and global warming is stabilized. We have very little time to choose. Unfortunately, the allure of black gold and big trucks appears to be taking us down the wrong path." Bill Becker is executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.

Indonesia Raises Fuel Costs 30% Amid Protests. Reuters, May 26, 2008. "Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said on Monday his government had no choice but to raise fuel prices to avoid a crisis similar to the 1997 economic meltdown that crippled the southeast Asian country. Indonesia raised fuel prices by almost 30% on Saturday, sparking angry protests in a country where millions are already feeling the brunt of the rising cost of food... The issue has proved a tricky one for the government ahead of next year's parliamentary and presidential elections because of the risk of widespread social unrest if fuel and food prices rise sharply. Indonesia witnessed almost daily protests from students and workers in the run-up to the price hike, although there was no rioting... 'Compared to the [100% fuel price hike in October] 2005, the latest increase is moderate,' said political analyst Fachry Ali... 'Nothing happened then, so it will be alright now.' Price increases have always been a sensitive issue in Indonesia. A fuel price increase was one of the reasons for massive protests that led to the downfall of former President Suharto in 1998. Even after the average 28.7 percent increase, Indonesia has some of the lowest fuel prices in Asia."

Can Coal, Biofuels and Nuclear Energy be Clean Options?

In Vermont, Conflict Around an Aging Nuclear Plant. By Kate Galbraith, NYTimes, May 28, 2008. "After part of a cooling tower collapsed last August at Vermont's only nuclear power plant, the company that runs it blamed rotting wooden timbers that it had failed to inspect properly. The uproar that followed rekindled environmental groups' hopes of shutting down the aging plant... The discussion here is bringing into sharp relief a conflict between two objectives long held by environmental advocates: combating nuclear power and stopping global warming... Vermont's 36-year-old plant, which feeds into the regional power grid, represents a third of the state's electrical generation... Some environmental advocates have reluctantly acknowledged that no combination of renewable power and improved efficiency can replace the plant, Vermont Yankee, at least in the near term. Instead, the state would probably have to tap the Northeastern grid -- which derives more than half its energy from fossil fuels -- for extra power... Andrew Perchlik, director of Renewable Energy Vermont, a group that promotes clean power, speaking about the prospect of the plant's closing. He faulted the state government and utilities for not focusing earlier on renewable energy, saying if they had done so, 'we wouldn't be in this predicament.'"

Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal. By Matthew L. Wald, NYTimes, May 30, 2008. "Plans to combat global warming generally assume that continued use of coal for power plants is unavoidable for at least several decades. Therefore, starting as early as 2020, forecasters assume that carbon dioxide emitted by new power plants will have to be captured and stored underground, to cut down on the amount of global-warming gases in the atmosphere. Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective and affordable... It has become clear in recent months that the nation's effort to develop the technique is lagging badly. In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons. Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo... The Electric Power Research Institute, a utility consortium, estimated that it would take as long as 15 years to go from starting a pilot plant to proving the technology will work. The institute has set a goal of having large-scale tests completed by 2020. 'A year ago, that was an aggressive target,' said Steven R. Specker, the president of the institute. 'A year has gone by, and now it's a very aggressive target.'"

Sweden Certifying Sustainable Sugar-Based Ethanol. Grist, May 27, 2008. "Swedish biofuel company SEKAB says it will become the first company to vend ethanol verified to be environmentally and socially sustainable. The company is partnering with Brazilian producers to develop criteria for the full lifecycle of fuel-bound sugarcane, verifying that the fuel was not produced through child or slave labor, was processed in fair working conditions for fair wages, and did not contribute to rainforest destruction. 'This initiative is the first of its kind in the world and a major step for speeding up the replacement of gasoline and diesel,' says Anders Fredriksson of SEKAB. 'The criteria will gradually be developed over the coming years and synchronized with international regulations when these are in place.' In the meantime, flex-fuel vehicle drivers in Sweden should be able to fill up on SEKAB's sustainable ethanol by August."

Cars

Norway's Think to Produce, Sell Small Electric Cars in U.S. By Norihiko Shirouzu, WSJ, May 29, 2008, subscription. "Norway's Think Global AS, with backing from U.S. venture capital investors, plans to produce and sell a small all-electric car in the U.S. that could go as far as 110 miles when fully charged... with an aim to launch the car -- the Think City - in 2009... Think plans to sell the City, to be priced less than $25,000, in densely populated cities because of the car's limited range... In Norway, Think is rushing to boost production to 10,000 a year this year to meet demand in Europe.

Hybrids: The High Cost of Replacing Batteries. By Keith Naughton, Newsweek, May 27, 2008. "What happens if the battery on your hybrid goes dead? These cars, after all, have been on the road in America for eight years, racking up hundreds of thousands of miles... Toyota, Honda, and Ford all say that hybrid battery failures are extremely rare. [The warranties for each cover the first 100,000 miles in most states - 150 miles for California, and Toyota and Honda have announced plans to cut battery replacement cost now at $3,000 and $3,400 respectively. However, they will remain expensive and when shopping for used hybrids,] there aren't many mechanics who know how to tell is a hybrid battery is running out of juice."

Great Lakes

Warming Seen Depleting Great Lakes Even More. By Andrew Stern, Reuters, May 29, 2008. "Global warming will likely drain more water from the Great Lakes and pose added pollution threats to the region's vulnerable ecosystem, environmental groups said in a report issued on Wednesday. Climate change could further reduce scant ice cover observed in recent winters, increasing evaporation rates and dropping water levels in the five lakes that collectively make up 20 percent of the world's surface fresh water. Last year, Lake Superior water levels receded to their lowest in 77 years before rebounding, and the report [PDF, 36 pp] by the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition predicted global warming could lower lake levels by up to 3 feet (1 meter) over the next century."

Great Lakes States Act to Restrict Access to Lakes' Water. By Tim Jones, Chicago Tribune, May 27, 2008. "Piece by piece, a 5,500-mile wall around the Great Lakes is going up. You can't see it, but construction is progressing nicely, along with an implied neon sign that flashes, 'Hands off -- it's our water.' The legal pilings for a 1,000-mile segment of the wall are scheduled to be sunk Tuesday when Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle finalizes his state's approval of the so-called Great Lakes Compact, a multi-state agreement designed to protect and restrict access to nearly 20% of the world's supply of fresh water, contained in the five Great Lakes. After that will come Ohio, where later this week the legislature is expected to make it the sixth state to endorse the water agreement and advance a strong regional warning to chronically dry regions of the South and West that Great Lakes water is staying here. 'The Great Lakes are our Grand Canyon. It's our resource to protect, it's the backbone of the region,' said Joel Brammeier... [of] the Alliance for the Great Lakes. States, cities and countries have been arguing over water rights for decades, but the fights -- often called water wars -- have taken on a heightened sense of urgency in light of prolonged droughts, mounting evidence of climate change and, closer to home, declining lake levels."

China

China to Ban Free Plastic Bags in Shops. By Henry Sanderson, AP, May 30, 2008. "China will become the latest country to ban free plastic bags this weekend, part of a government-led campaign to cut down on waste and help the environment. The nationwide measure that goes into effect Sunday eliminates the flimsiest bags and forces stores to charge for others... The China Plastics Processing Industry Association estimates the measure will reduce the amount of plastic bags used by a third from 1.6 million tons a year. The Chinese now use 3 billion bags every day, according to the group, and they are virtually indestructible, taking years to break down and commonly ending up in China's clogged landfills.

China's Silver Lining. By James Fallows, Atlantic Monthly, June, 2008. "Here is what I learned by visiting [a coal-cement complex in Zibo, a modest city of 4 or 5 million people in Shandong province, 230 miles southeast of Beijing], and by seeing and asking about many similar 'green' projects in China: China's environmental situation is disastrous. And it is improving. Everyone knows about the first part. The second part is important too. Outside recognition of where and why China has made progress increases the prospects that it will make further advances. Recognition also clarifies the most important obstacles, political and economic, to such progress. And it is simply fair to the many people within China, including within the Chinese Communist Party, who are trying their best to make a difference -- and who are having more success than most Westerners who rely on media accounts would suspect." 

Green Initiatives

Touting Green-Collar Jobs. By Bryan Walsh, Time, May 27, 2008. "They all love green-collar jobs. Obama promises to spend $150 billion over 10 years to create 5 million new green collar jobs. Clinton references the term repeatedly on the trail, and says her energy plan will create millions of new green-collar jobs as well. McCain is less willing to cite numbers, but he too assures campaign audiences that action to decarbonize America's economy will produce 'thousands, millions of new jobs in America.'... Phil Angelides... chair of the Apollo Alliance, defines a green job [as follows]: 'It has to pay decent wages and benefits that can support a family. It has to be part of a real career path, with upward mobility. And it needs to reduce waste and pollution and benefit the environment'… Angelides notes that between now and 2030, 75% of the buildings in the U.S. will either be new or substantially rehabilitated. Our inefficient, dangerously unstable electrical grid will need to be overhauled. The jobs that will go into that kind of work can be green collar -- provided that the government adopts the kind of policies that incentivize environmentally friendly choices... Environmentalism has usually been the reserve of the elite -- but we'll never have the power to tackle global warming unless we create a coalition that extends well beyond traditional white-collar greens. Touting green-collar jobs can convince skeptical, blue-collar Americans that they have an economic stake in curbing climate change."

Massachusetts' Officials Unite on Push to Go Green. By Maite Jullian, Metro West Daily News [Mass.], May 27, 2008. "Gov. Deval Patrick and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi... are part of a unified effort to decrease Massachusetts' dependence on foreign oil and to capitalize on the economic and environmental benefits that the clean energy industry represents. 'The House speaker, Senate president and the governor are all very much on board with the notion of Massachusetts becoming a leader in clean energy,' said Paul D'Arbeloff... of the New England Clean Energy Council. Patrick filed an executive order in April 2007 setting standards for reduction of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by state agencies. DiMasi filed the Green Communities Act... [which] passed the Senate and the House and is currently in a conference committee... Last March, the Senate also passed the Global Warming Solution Act, which would require a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80% below the 1990 level by 2050. Ten other states have similar... targets... So far, California is the state's chief rival, according to a 2007 report from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative... [which also states that]... the industry is on track to generate 75,000 jobs in Massachusetts over the next 10 years. The Biofuels Task Force created last November by the state's three top officials also released promising numbers."

How Much Do You Really Want to Save on Gas? By Kimberly Palmer, USN&WReport, May 28, 2008. "With the price of gas approaching, and in several regions exceeding, $4 a gallon, some drivers are getting creative to reduce their bill... Here are some of the best tips, collected from around the Web, on how to reduce your bill: Lighten up... According to [DOE], carrying an extra 100 lbs. reduces a vehicle's fuel economy by up to 2%... Carpool... RideSearch and eRideShare can get you started... Comparison shop... GasBuddy [and] GasPriceWatch let you look up the stations near you and find the one offering the cheapest fuel. Get sleeker. Roll up your windows and remove that luggage rack and you'll improve your aerodynamics, suggests a blogger at Open Travel Info... Reward yourself... Money$martLife compares the various [rebate] offers and recommends Discover's Open Road card and American Express's Blue Cash, which offer up to 5% cash-back rewards on gas purchases. Reduce horsepower... Visit the mechanic. Replacing a clogged air filter for around $20 increases fuel efficiency by up to 10%... An engine tune-up can increase a car's mileage by up to 4%... Just coast. Here's a real sign of desperation... The Money Kings recommend turning your engine completely off [when going downhill]. That way, you can take advantage of the car's momentum... But [AAA] warns against the dangers of this technique."

Calls for Climate Action

Public Trust Doctrine Could Spur Government Climate Action. By Bennett Hall, Corvallis Gazette-Times, May 31, 2008. "University of Oregon law professor Mary Wood is tired of waiting for government officials to take action on global warming. So she's devised a new legal tool to hurry them up. Drawing on her background in both natural resources and property law, Wood has developed a theory that claims the atmosphere is an asset that belongs to all but is held in trust by the government. The government has a legal obligation to protect that trust from harm, she argues, just as financial managers have a legal obligation to protect the monetary assets in their care... Wood, 45, has worked tirelessly for more than a year to promote the idea, writing articles for legal journals, presenting at conferences, speaking on college campuses and radio programs and co-authoring a [forthcoming] book titled The Dawn of Planetary Patriotism. Her theory began to get some traction among public interest attorneys [in December, 2007] after she [delivered this keynote address, PDF 19 pp] at an environmental law conference in Eugene. Afterward, a group of 30 attorneys formed a task force to explore ways to take Wood's atmospheric trust doctrine from the classroom to the courtroom... Greg Costello is one of the public interest attorneys evaluating Wood's proposal as the basis for potential lawsuits. He thinks it could be a successful legal strategy because it's grounded in a widely accepted principle of common law. 'Public trust doctrine is a doctrine everybody learns in law school. It goes back to Roman times,' said Costello, executive director of the Eugene-based Western Environmental Law Center... Although her atmospheric trust doctrine provides a basis for litigation, she'd rather see government at all levels -- local, state and federal -- begin acting to halt global warming. The greatest contribution she can make to that effort, Wood said, is to create a conceptual framework that helps people understand government has an obligation to act."

1700 Scientists and Economists Call for Swift Climate Action in Washington. Press Release, Union of Concerned Scientists, May 29, 2008. "More than 1,700 of the nation's most prominent scientists and economists released a joint statement [just days before the Senate begins debate on the Lieberman-Warner climate bill] calling on policymakers to require immediate, deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming... The statement [letter, endorsers and personal quotes, PDF, 68 pp] concludes that the United States should reduce global warming pollution 'on the order of 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050' and that the first step should be reductions of 15 to 20 percent below 2000 levels by 2020. The statement calls on the United States to set an example and bring nations together to meet the climate challenge."

Dark Sky Advocates Speak Up. By Dean Fosdick, AP, May 27, 2008. "Light pollution may not rank up there with climate change as cause for alarm, but a vocal community of stargazers believes it to be an important lifestyle and energy issue that must and can be resolved... Two-thirds of American cities are places where people can't see the Milky Way from their backyards, says Chris Luginbuhl... with the U.S. Naval Observatory... in Flagstaff, Ariz... 'There are few places [across the U.S.] the size of a county that have unpolluted dark skies. Here in the West, there are only a couple of good areas... but they're hard to get to.' Light pollution also confuses nocturnal animals and migrating birds, scientists say... As important as darkness is to astronomers, it's even more important for the human spirit, the Navy's Luginbuhl says. 'Light pollution is like having thick air pollution that would only let you see a quarter of the way across the Grand Canyon, or it would be like driving to the Tetons and not being able to see the peaks. People wouldn't stand for that.'" [For more information, go to Midwest Citizens for Responsible Outdoor Lighting and the International Dark-Sky Association.]

We encourage readers to forward issues of CCC Newsfeed to friends and associates, with a cover note explaining that one can sign on for free at our website: www.climatecrisiscoalition.org, (upper right, under News About Climate Change). For back issues visit News Digest Archive.

Many of the stories we post are sent in by our readers to tstokes@.... Opinions presented in our selections do not necessarily represent positions taken by CCC.

If you currently receive the Weekend Summary but not the Mon-Fri Daily, and you would like to try it, please return this email with "daily" in the subject line. If you get the Daily but would prefer to just get the Weekend Summary, please write "weekly." If you'd rather be taken off our subscription list, write "unsubscribe."

THANKS FOR ALL YOUR CALLS!

KEEP THEM COMING!

KEEP NUCLEAR SUBSIDIES OUT OF THE CLIMATE BILL!

…and some more news below…

Dear Friends:

All day long, we have been receiving notes from people letting us know they have called their Senators demanding that nuclear power subsidies stay out of the climate bill! The response has been gratifying—and we know these calls are effective. We’ve heard reports of some offices being overwhelmed with calls, and others simply turning on their answering machines to avoid more ringing phones.

We now don’t believe any nuclear amendments will be voted on today. Thus, if you haven’t yet called your Senators, please do so. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121.

We also now have seen the text of the likely Lieberman/Warner nuclear amendment. It calls for funds for “nuclear science and engineering education” and for “nuclear energy trades training and certification,” as well as a “sense of the Senate” that nuclear power is safe, that nuclear power emits “fewer greenhouse gases than wind energy, solar energy, and biomass on a per kilowatt-hour basis,” and that Congress should develop new programs to “stimulate” investment for the manufacture of nuclear components—such as reactor vessels. These provisions are being put in because the nuclear industry simply doesn’t have the infrastructure to build new reactors—so they want taxpayers to pay for that infrastructure. We need to tell the Senate that we want our money spent on the fastest, safest, cheapest and cleanest solutions to the climate crisis: renewables and energy efficiency.

We have not seen the likely Isakson amendment, but it reportedly will expand on the Lieberman/Warner amendment by providing specific tax credits for reactor component manufacture and by adding still more money for taxpayer loan guarantees for new reactors.

Ten Washington based organizations issued a statement calling for rejection of the subsidies: Clean Water Action; Environment America; Environmental Working Group;

Greenpeace; Natural Resources Defense Council; Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Nuclear Policy Research Institute/Beyond Nuclear; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Public Citizen; Sierra Club; and Union of Concerned Scientists.

Either or both of these proposals could be voted on late Wednesday night but more likely on Thursday.

Meanwhile, two other major nuclear developments:

*All 27 countries in the European Union were put on Alert today because of a loss-of-coolant accident at the Krsko nuclear reactor in Slovenia. Authorities say there was no release of radiation, but Greenpeace International in Amsterdam is asking for independent assurances of that and our allies at Global 2000 in Vienna, Austria are on their way to the site now to take their own radiation measurements.

*The US Department of Energy yesterday filed its application for licensing of the proposed Yucca Mountain radioactive waste dump in Nevada. Nevada officials and environmentalists everywhere will continue to fight this dangerous, leaky, earthquake-prone facility. We’ll have more on this in upcoming issues of the Nuclear Monitor.

Again, thanks to everyone who has made calls, and asked their friends and colleagues and even strangers to make calls. If you haven’t done so yet, there is still time. It’s the most effective thing you can do right now to stop the nuclear power relapse. 202-224-3121.

Michael Mariotte

Executive Director

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

nirsnet@...

www.nirs.org

301-270-3477

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please consider making an extra $30 donation (or $300 or $3,000, if you can!)—in honor of NIRS’ 30^th anniversary this year—on our secure website here. Help kick off our next 30 years, and our work to build a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy future, with your most generous contribution possible.

And if you haven’t done so yet, don’t forget to sign the statement on nuclear power and climate at www.nirs.org (but please don’t sign more than once!). If you’ve already signed, please ask your friends and colleagues to sign! You can send the petition to your friends by going to: http://www.nirs.org/petition2/thanks.php?id=829fcdea1bbbd9dd6b66683d5f10eb88

We’ve passed 7750 7830 signatures, let’s get to 10,000 this month!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the NIRS E-Mail Alert list. You are on this list because you signed up on our website, at a NIRS table at a concert, on a petition, or directly to NIRS. Your name and address are never sold, rented, or traded with anyone for any reason.

For address changes or to unsubscribe, just send an e-mail to nirsnet@.... If you have friends or colleagues who would like to be on this list, have them send a note to nirsnet@...