Given new evidence on carbon pollution, President Obama should get moving on global warming.

I get asked what I read all the time. I haven’t yet compiled a list of climate/environmental news or blog sites (too lazy, tbh!), though I have a FAQs, made a bookstore, and wrote some book recommendations,

I am subscribed to countless climate listservs, and I skim around 25 climate/environment news websites as part of my daily routine (this doesn’t include work or research, which easily bumps that up to hundreds).

One daily newsletter that I enjoy/viciously-hate is called “Clean Start.” It’s written by the folks at ThinkProgress. Here is a sample of today’s newsletter. Instructions for you to subscribe are at the bottom.

Clean Start From ThinkProgress: Busy Day on the Hill

Welcome to Clean Start from Climate Progress, the exclusive energy newsletter from a progressive perspective. Send feedback and suggestions to cleanstart@thinkprogress.org.

CLEAN START FROM CLIMATE PROGRESS By Ryan Koronowski

* Gina McCarthy Re-Do, Ernest Moniz Vote in the Senate, Keystone in the House *

Democrats of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will attempt yet again to advance the nomination of Gina McCarthy to run the EPA. Last week, not a single Republican bothered to show up for the vote despite the fact that she has answered more than 1,100 of the committee’s questions. Sen. Warren spoke on the Senate floor yesterday demanding a vote on McCarthy, reprimanding Republicans for blocking the business of government and the business of protecting people. Sen. Vitter confirmed late Wednesday that some Republicans will attend today’s vote. At 2 p.m. today, the Senate will likely vote to approve Ernest Moniz, who has been nominated to lead the Department of Energy. Also on the Hill, Republicans in the House will make the case during a subcommittee hearing that building Keystone would bring positive economic spillovers for small businesses and rural communities while the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will vote on H.R.3, a bill to approve Keystone. [The Hill]

* Survey Of Peer-Reviewed Papers Finds 97% Consensus On Human-Caused Global Warming *

A survey of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals has found 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity. Authors of the survey said the finding of near unanimity provided a powerful rebuttal to climate deniers who insist the science of climate change remains unsettled. The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in almost 12,000 academic papers. [Guardian, Reuters, ThinkProgress]

* Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers Says He Supports NC’s Clean Energy Standard *

Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy, defended North Carolina’s renewable energy standard at the company’s annual shareholder meeting yesterday. A conservative activist (who has previously asked a question at Disney’s shareholder meeting about liberal bias) asked Rogers about higher energy costs. In response, Rogers said the law prevent utilities from spending too much, and RESs are widespread across the country. He said later he supports the law, which is facing continued threats from ALEC members in the state legislature to repeal it. Earlier this month, a state senate committee chair approved a bill to repeal the RES out of his committee without counting votes and despite loud opposition. [Charlotte Business Journal, ThinkProgress]

* QUICK LINKS *

— For more than 30 years, ocean fish and mammals have migrated away from warming equatorial waters and toward the poles, providing more evidence climate change has already had broad global consequences. [Washington Post]

— George Bush’s EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman said that GOP members of the EPW Committee “looked like sore losers” when they boycotted McCarthy’s vote hearing last week. [National Journal]

— The U.S. military’s programmatic efforts to rely less on fossil fuels are threatened by the sequester. [Medill]

— BP wants British Prime Minister David Cameron to intervene regarding the compensation of businesses affected by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill. [BBC]

— The GAO finds that the federal government should help local communities adapt to the impacts of climate change. [The Hill]

— The 5th Circuit ruled against a lawsuit filed by Mississippi coastal residents arguing that fossil fuel emissions contributed to the strength of Hurricane Katrina. [Clarion Ledger]

— Organizing for Action called on supporters to press the Republican EPW members for boycotting McCarthy’s nomination hearing. [The Hill]

— Weather prediction is slated to improve significantly following upgrades to the two supercomputers the National Weather Service uses to forecast local, national, and global weather patterns. [Washington Post]

— Spoiled food could be used to power grocery stores’ using clean electricity. [LA Times]

* CALENDAR *

9:00 am: The Woodrow Wilson Center’s (WWC) Environmental Change and Security Program (ECSP) holds a discussion on a new ECSP report, “Backdraft: The Conflict Potential of Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation.”

9:30 am: The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee votes on the Northern Route Approval Act (H.R. 3), a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline project.

10:00 am: The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs holds an oversight hearing entitled, “The 2008 Lacey Act Amendments.” Witnesses and more information will be listed here when available.

10:00 am: The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee holds a meeting to consider pending calendar business.

10:00 am: The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation holds an oversight hearing titled, “Invasive Species Management on Federal Lands.”

10:00 am: The Subcommittees on Energy and Power and Environment and the Economy hold a hearing tited “The Fiscal Year 2014 Environmental Protection Agency Budget.” Members will review the president’s FY2014 EPA Budget Request and discuss the agency’s agenda. EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe will be the only witness.

10:00 am: The Small Business Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy and Trade holds a hearing titled, “If You Build It: Keystone XL Pipeline and Small Business Job Growth.” A live webcast will be here: http://1.usa.gov/Nkrzjh.

10:30 am: The Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements holds a hearing, “Opportunities Lost: Constraints on Oil and Gas Production on Federal Lands and Waters.” http://1.usa.gov/11qKMbp

12:00 pm: The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee holds a vote on the nomination of Gina McCarthy to head the EPA.

12:30 pm: The U.S. Army, along with Lockheed Martin and the Department of Defense, will unveil the DOD’s first grid-tied intelligent microgrid integrating renewable resources and energy storage at a ribbon-cutting ceremony at Fort Bliss.

1:00 pm: Former Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift, former Republican Congressman and Chair of the House Science Committee Sherwood Boehlert, and NRDC Clean Air Program Director John Walke will offer reactions to today’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works vote on the nomination of Gina McCarthy

2:00 pm: The Senate holds a vote on the nomination of Ernest Moniz to head the Energy Department.

5:00 pm: Sen. Lisa Murkowski holds on-the-record pen & pad session to discuss her trip to the Arctic Coucil in Sweden.

** Follow @ClimateProgress **

Have a colleague who should receive Clean Start? Email cleanstart@thinkprogress.org.

Unsubscribe from Clean Start
Center for American Progress Action Fund | 1333 H Street NW, 10th Floor | Washington, DC 20005

Maybe even worth printing out.

Surprise of the year so far. It’ll be interesting to see how enviros will react if/when the national GOP moves towards similar legislation. 

Inslee climate change bill passes state Senate

OLYMPIA — The Republican-controlled state Senate on Wednesday passed legislation aimed at developing ways to reduce state greenhouse-gas emissions, and meet targets set by the Legislature in 2008.

Senate Bill 5802 passed by a vote of 37 to 12. The legislation, requested by Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, creates a work group that’s supposed to come up with recommendations by the end of the year.

A similar bill was introduced in the House, but Democratic leaders are expected to work with the version that passed the Senate.

Inslee and his staff actively lobbied for the bill and the governor testified at committee hearings in the House and Senate. The measure that passed the Senate removed language talking about problems associated with climate change.

“I really want to take the religion out of carbon and I want to take a good hard look at how we can most effectively meet those goals” set in 2008, said Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, speaking in favor of the bill. Ericksen is chairman of the Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee.

Via Seattle Times

Good read, but nothing on adaptation:

President Obama is expected to launch a serious second-term push on climate change with his State of the Union address.

With climate legislation dead in Congress, green groups are hopeful that Obama will follow the “we must act” mantra of his inaugural address and put the full weight of his executive powers behind their agenda.

 “The problem is very pressing, and so the sooner we have policy proposals in front of us, the better.”

Obama has already signaled his willingness to use his executive powers forcefully, laying out a series of executive orders on gun control in addition to calling for legislation.

 On climate, the White House took some steps with executive powers in the first term, and that’s expected to be the primary second-term focus.

“If he were to just repeat what he said in the [second] inaugural address, that would be considered a missed opportunity, but I don’t believe he will. I believe he will be more specific about what he is going to do,” said one climate advocate.

Liberals in Congress have urged the president to go big on climate as well.

“From a planetary point of view there is no issue more important than climate change, and the president has to be as bold and specific as he possibly can,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told reporters on the eve of Obama’s address.

At the very top of advocates’ wish list is a commitment to setting carbon emissions standards for existing coal-fired power plants. A move in that direction would begin an all-out war with coal-based power companies and some other industry sectors that say there would be huge economic costs from increased regulation. 

Obama, without Congress, can also expand on his first-term actions to boost Defense Department green energy programs and development alternative energy on public lands, among other steps.

No matter what steps Obama takes, environmentalists say the president needs to use the bully pulpit to rally public support. 

Also,

Surprisingly bold call for adapting to climate change by Chiemi Hayashi of the WEF. She calls for heavy investments in climate adaptation now while leaders figure out how to tackle the current economic crisis.

She doesn’t quiet say it, but Hayashi implies that efforts to reduce carbon emissions have failed. And since those efforts have failed, we have to deal with two crises that are sneaking up on us right now: an economic crisis and a disaster management crisis.

Climate change threats are being neglected to tackle short term economic stresses but it would be wise to invest in climate change adaptation now.

The world is facing an unprecedented dual crisis. But with economic and environmental stresses playing out over different timeframes, deep-rooted biases in the way we judge risks may mean we are too preoccupied with firefighting short-term economic problems to tackle longer-term climate threats.

That is one of the key messages to emerge from the Global Risks 2013 report, published by the World Economic Forum. The report is based on an annual survey in which experts share their perceptions of how global risks may unfold over a 10-year time horizon.

Highlighted concerns left no doubt that the continuing fallout from the financial crisis of five years ago is likely to dominate leaders’ attention over the coming decade. Growth prospects remain relatively weak, and intense pressure on public finances is set to continue.

Meanwhile, experts rated the systemically most important environmental risk to be failure to adapt to climate change – in contrast to last year, when rising greenhouse gas emissions topped the results. This reflects a wider shift in recent conversation on climate change, from the question of whether our climate is changing to “by how much” and “how quickly”.

The transition can be seen in a spate of recent reports on climate adaptation efforts. Examples of adaptation initiatives include flood defences for coastal cities, strengthening the capacity of critical infrastructure to survive freak weather events, and researching crop varieties which are more able to withstand swings between extremes of drought and flood.

While the numbers involved vary widely according to different climate change scenarios, it is clear that the costs of investing in adaptation measures and curtailing greenhouse gas emissions are greatly outweighed by the likely future costs of failing to do so. One recent report by Mercer estimates the economic costs of climate change as likely to fall between $2tn and $4tn and (£1.25tn and £2.5tn) by 2030. In addition, we are observing nascent trends of climate change-related litigations, which could compound the cost of climate change significantly.

Logic dictates that it would be wise to bear the costs of investing in climate change adaptation now, rather than shouldering the greater future costs of climate-related disasters. However, humans suffer from several well-established cognitive biases which may hold us back from doing so.

The term “hyperbolic discounting” refers to the tendency to give immediate costs and benefits disproportionately more weight than delayed ones. Researchers have also found that we place too much emphasis on recent personal experience when estimating the future likelihood of a given risk occurring – for instance, taking out flood insurance immediately after a flood, and letting it lapse after a few years without a flood.

The cumulative effect of such cognitive biases is that we tend to find reasons to persuade ourselves that it is not necessary to focus on risks which are perceived to be long term, creeping and relatively uncertain. And while some degree of climate change is now inevitable, there remains great uncertainty about its likely extent and local manifestations.

The latter is especially significant, as climate adaptation is inherently local.

This is a great article. Honest and clear-eyed. I highly recommend my followers to take some time to read it. Via The Guardian

I devoured Lord Stern’s now famous report six years ago (has it been that long!?). At the time Stern’s report was very controversial. It focused primarily on the economic impacts from climate, and had included some incredibly high numbers. It was widely thought to be out-of-touch with reality - that his numbers were wildly overestimated and his analysis of the models was flawed. True, this reception has softened somewhat over the years.

Now Stern says he didn’t go far enough.

Lord Stern, author of the government-commissioned review on climate change that became the reference work for politicians and green campaigners, now says he underestimated the risks, and should have been more “blunt” about the threat posed to the economy by rising temperatures.

In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Stern, who is now a crossbench peer, said: “Looking back, I underestimated the risks. The planet and the atmosphere seem to be absorbing less carbon than we expected, and emissions are rising pretty strongly. Some of the effects are coming through more quickly than we thought then.”

The Stern review, published in 2006, pointed to a 75% chance that global temperatures would rise by between two and three degrees above the long-term average; he now believes we are “on track for something like four “. Had he known the way the situation would evolve, he says, “I think I would have been a bit more blunt. I would have been much more strong about the risks of a four- or five-degree rise.”

He said some countries, including China, had now started to grasp the seriousness of the risks, but governments should now act forcefully to shift their economies towards less energy-intensive, more environmentally sustainable technologies.

“This is potentially so dangerous that we have to act strongly. Do we want to play Russian roulette with two bullets or one? These risks for many people are existential.”

The Guardian

Kyoto Protocol aimed for 5% cut in carbon emissions — instead, we got a 58% increase

The controversial and ineffective Kyoto Protocol’s first stage comes to an end today, leaving the world with 58 per cent more greenhouse gases than in 1990, as opposed to the five per cent reduction its signatories sought.

From the beginning, the treaty that was adopted in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, was problematic. Opponents denied the science of climate change and claimed the treaty was a socialist plot. Environmentalists decried the lack of ambition in Kyoto and warned of dire consequences for future generations.

But the goal of the treaty was simple.

“We hoped that we would be able to reduce greenhouse gases substantially, but that it was a first step,” explained Christine Stewart, the Liberal environment minister who negotiated in Kyoto on Canada’s behalf.

The Kyoto Protocol was an initiative that came out of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. It recognized that climate change was a result of greenhouse gases created by human industrial activity. The idea was that rich nations, which had already benefited from industrialization, would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the first part of the treaty and developing nations would join in later.

Although the protocol was adopted in 1997, it didn’t to come into force until 2005. In the intervening eight years, countries set reduction targets for themselves and ratified the agreement.

“At the time we didn’t realize how complicated it would be to get the Kyoto Protocol ratified and for it to enter into force internationally,” said Steven Guilbeault, co-founder of Equiterre, a Montreal-based environmental charity.

Problems from the beginning

Right off the bat, there were problems. The U.S., the world’s biggest emitter at the time, signed up but never ratified…

Via CBC