In an otherwise silly article criticizing efforts to improve climate science messaging, John Horgan, a former Scientific American staff writer who directs the Center for Science Writings at Stevens Institute of Technology, reports:

I teach at an engineering school, and about one third of my students identify themselves as global-warming skeptics. They tend to know more about global warming than students who accept it as a fact. Two sources at the Science Times section of the New York Times have told me that a majority of the section’s editorial staff doubts that human-induced global warming represents a serious threat to humanity.

And this guy argues that just telling people the science is all that is needed to persuade them!

Anyway, I would say it’s been a open secret for a long time that the NYT’s science writers and science editors don’t get it (see “And the 2009 “Citizen Kane” award for non-excellence in climate journalism goes to …“).  The mere fact that they keep anti-science writer John Tierney on staff tells you everything you need to know (see “Tierney makes up stuff — does the NYT employ several know/do-nothing fact checkers” and “John Tierney IS the country’s worst science writer“).

The science could not be more clear cut that staying anywhere near our current path of unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases poses a multitude of threats that go far, far beyond serious  –  as can be seen from even a brief glance at the recent peer-reviewed literature and/or reports from leading scientists (see links below).  So if you don’t understand that, it’s because you don’t know the science or you have been persuaded by the rhetorical strategies of the anti-science crowd.

Horgan is uber-naive if he thinks how one articulates a message has no serious impact on how it is received. As a 23-year-old Winston Churchill wrote in a brilliant, unpublished essay, “The Scaffolding of Rhetoric.”

Of all the talents bestowed upon men, none is so precious as the gift of oratory. He who enjoys it wields a power more durable than that of a great king…. The subtle art of combining the various elements that separately mean nothing and collectively mean so much in an harmonious proportion is known to very few…. [T]he student of rhetoric may indulge the hope that Nature will finally yield to observation and perseverance, the key to the hearts of men.

And yes, one can use rhetoric and still be scientifically accurate.  Indeed, repetition is the core strategy of rhetoric, something most scientists simply don’t practice (see “Why scientists aren’t more persuasive, Part 1“).

Horgan repeats the tired pejorative that trying to explain science to nonscientists in a manner that they might actually understand and remember means you think they are “ignorant, irrational idiots.”

As naïve as this may sound, I believe environmentalists should try to influence public opinion by laying out the facts as clearly and honestly as possible and refraining from rhetorical trickery. Inconvenient Truth was a framing masterpiece, but Al Gore’s linkage of global warming to Katrina, however qualified, has made it easier for wackos to  claim that single weather events, like the big blizzards that struck Washington, D.C., this winter, contradict global warming.

Yes, it does sound naive.  Scientists have been telling us the science (poorly) with the proper qualifications for years.  The “wackos” simply make persuasive-sounding stuff up and repeat it endlessly, no matter what scientists do.  Even the prestigious journal Nature editorialized: “Scientists must now emphasize the science, while acknowledging that they are in a street fight.”

The fact is, rhetoric works.  And it works not on “ignorant, irrational idiots,” but all people.  Indeed, a rhetorician will always out debate a logician (see Why scientists aren’t more persuasive, Part 2: Why deniers out-debate “smart talkers”).

In his dialogue, Gorgias, about the master rhetorician, Plato gives him a speech that dramatized the awesome power of rhetoric over two millennia ago:

If a rhetorician and a doctor visited any city you like to name and they had to contend in argument before the Assembly or any other gathering as to which of the two should be chosen as doctor, the doctor would be nowhere, but the man who could speak would be chosen, if he so wished.  And if he should compete against any other craftsman whatever, the rhetorician rather then any other would persuade the people to choose him: for there is no subject on which a rhetorician would not speak more persuasively than any other craftsman, before a crowd. Such then is the scope and character of rhetoric

A rhetorician could persuade any audience, no matter how intelligent, that he was more of a scientist than a real scientist!

To point out the irony (a rhetorical figure of speech), it is precisely because rhetoric works on everybody that Horgan’s attempt to pigeonhole good messaging — “to help the dim-witted public see the world in the same enlightened way that environmentalists do” — is completely backwards.

How is that “a majority of the [NYT Science] section’s editorial staff doubts  that human-induced global warming represents a serious threat to humanity”?

They aren’t dumb.  So either they they have been convinced by superior messaging (by the anti-science crowd and others) or they don’t actually know the science:

• M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10°F — with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20°F
• Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year — and that isn’t the worst case, it’s business as usual!”
• Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path
• Ocean dead zones to expand, “remain for thousands of years”
• Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred
• U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: “Recent observations confirm … the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised” — 1000 ppm
• Science: CO2 levels haven’t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher — “We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm.”
• Nature: “Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet ocean margins is more sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously realized.”
• Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100
• High Water: Greenland ice sheet melting faster than expected and could raise East Coast sea levels an extra 20 inches by 2100 — to more than 6 feet.
• Science stunner: “Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warming” — an amplifying feedback (sorry Lindzen and fellow disinformers)
• Study: Water-vapor feedback is “strong and positive,” so we face “warming of several degrees Celsius”
• Ocean dead zones to expand, “remain for thousands of years”
• UK Met Office: Catastrophic climate change, 13-18°F over most of U.S. and 27°F in the Arctic, could happen in 50 years, but “we do have time to stop it if we cut greenhouse gas emissions soon.”
• “The Copenhagen Diagnosis” warns “Without significant mitigation, the report says global mean warming could reach as high as 7 degrees Celsius by 2100.”
• NOAA stunner: Climate change “largely irreversible for 1000 years,” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe

No serious threat there.

Reducing America’s dependence on imported oil will not only enhance our national security; it will create substantially more jobs than continuing on our current path of waste and unsustainable resource use.  CAP has teamed up with the Natural Resources Defense Council and the United Auto Workers to produce a new study on the clean car revolution that is already underway. The executive summary is below, and you can access the full report here. In the photo, Workers in a Detroit, Michigan plant stand by a newly produced Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.

Reengineering the U.S. automobile fleet to use energy more efficiently will require new investments in advanced technology, increasing demand for skilled labor. Instead of presenting a threat to the auto industry, reigning in reliance on oil and cutting pollution from fossil fuels can demonstrably create jobs, accelerate innovation, and increase demand for advanced manufacturing.

It is clear that increasing America’s fuel economy can create more jobs, but which nations will capture the economic benefits of this shift to a more fuel-efficient fleet has yet to be determined. How Congress chooses to address comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation will strongly shape whether American workers enjoy the good jobs, competitive advantage, and sustained economic growth that will come with the move to a new clean energy economy.

This study offers two key insights on the nature of clean energy jobs in the automobile sector, each with profound implications for policymakers and the economy.

First, this paper documents that saving oil will create good jobs, not in the abstract, but directly by driving demand for specific additional manufactured components. The move to greater fuel economy means greater labor content per vehicle and higher employment across the fleet. This will include new investment in a host of incremental improvements to conventional gasoline powered internal combustion engines, from new controls for valves and timing, to variable speed transmissions and advanced electronics. It will also include entirely new systems like hybrid drive trains and advanced diesel engines.

Together these investments add up. By 2020 this analysis shows that, all things being equal, supplying the U.S. automobile market with more efficient cars could provide a net gain of over 190,000 new jobs from improvements to fuel economy alone.

The second finding is equally profound. While it is certain that the production of new technology will create demand for workers, where those jobs are located will be the product of policy choices. Of the over 190,000 jobs anticipated by 2020, the number of domestic jobs created could vary greatly. Fewer than 50,000 jobs might go to American workers, or, with different incentives, more than three times that number, as many as 150,000 U.S. workers, could find employment as a result of new investments in the engineering and production of the technology needed to improve fuel economy. It’s up to us which path we take.

Many factors will shape where individual firms decide to produce fuel-efficient vehicles and their key components and whether this new demand will be met through domestic sourcing or imports. But it is clear that specific incentives can work to promote domestic production and drive new investment into existing plants and the skills of workers.

Strong comprehensive energy and climate legislation will ensure sustained reductions in oil use and carbon emissions. At the same time, it can capture economic growth through specific manufacturing conversion incentives funded through dedicated carbon allowance revenues. Legislation that sets a firm declining limit on global warming pollution is uniquely suited to this task for two reasons. First, it sends a critical message to markets and investors. Second, it provides a steady revenue source to drive long-term economic and environmental gains in the domestic auto sector and to assist in retooling assembly lines and retraining workers so that the United States continues to have a globally competitive auto industry that produces advanced clean vehicles. This integrated clean energy and jobs approach can expand opportunities for both U.S. firms and American workers, particularly in hard hit industrial states such as Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio.

It is also worth noting that while the analysis undertaken in this paper shows substantial positive economic and jobs impacts from pursuing improved fuel economy, many additional benefits of energy independence do not even figure in this calculation. Therefore, as positive as this opportunity looks on paper, the real benefits go further.

Avoided fuel costs put real dollars back in the pockets of consumers, increasing consumption and economic benefits. At the same time, reducing demand for oil helps buffer price volatility, while decoupling the growth of the economy from rising energy imports reduces vulnerability to price spikes and supply disruptions. And by pursuing the high-efficiency and low-carbon emission technology path outlined in this report, U.S. auto makers will preserve access for American-made cars to global markets, to serve the rapidly growing consumer demand for cleaner cars. As Americans use less oil to fuel our cars, we can also slow the flow of resources overseas to unstable and undemocratic nations, and invest instead in American jobs. By acting quickly, we can help to make the country less vulnerable to rising prices when global economic growth returns.

Clean energy manufacturing can drive the future prosperity of American workers if we creatively engage this opportunity. Our closest economic competitors in Asia and Europe are investing today in diversifying and expanding their manufacturing of clean energy technology. If the U.S. fails to make the same transition, we risk being left behind. However, climate legislation that includes manufacturing conversion incentives could help drive economic recovery and restore American leadership in the global automobile market and the global economy.

Which choice we make has yet to be determined. The future remains to be written.

Read the full report (pdf)

For more information, see:

• Clean Energy Investment Agenda
• Out of the Running?

This report was prepared for the Natural Resources Defense Council, United Auto Workers, and Center for American Progress by Alan Baum of The Planning Edge and Daniel Luria of the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center

Forest Ecology and Management just published a major new study by 19 researchers around the word, “A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests.”  Its key conclusion — that human-caused climate change is already killing forests, releasing carbon, and amplifying warming — will be a shock only to the anti-science crowd:

… studies compiled here suggest that at least some of the world’s forested ecosystems already may be responding to climate change and raise concern that forests may become increasingly vulnerable to higher background tree mortality rates and die-off in response to future warming and drought, even in environments that are not normally considered water-limited. This further suggests risks to ecosystem services, including the loss of sequestered forest carbon and associated atmospheric feedbacks.

Indeed, a 2008 Nature study looked at the beetle’s warming-driven devastation in British Columbia and concluded, “This impact converted the forest from a small net carbon sink to a large net carbon source.“

Much of the media has been covering only half the story, focusing on the devastation from the bark beetle but ignoring human-caused climate change (see “Signs of global warming are everywhere, but if the New York Times can’t tell the story (twice!), how will the public hear it?” and “NBC News ignores climate change, blows the bark beetle story“).

So, as part of the Climate Science Project, I’m reposting an excellent piece on the study by Montana journalist Jim Robbins in its entirety.  It was first published at Yale’s Environment 360 online magazine.

For many years, Diana Six, an entomologist at the University of Montana, planned her field season for the same two to three weeks in July. That’s when her quarry — tiny, black, mountain pine beetles — hatched from the tree they had just killed and swarmed to a new one to start their life cycle again.

Now, says Six, the field rules have changed. Instead of just two weeks, the beetles fly continually from May until October, attacking trees, burrowing in, and laying their eggs for half the year. And that’s not all. The beetles rarely attacked immature trees; now they do so all the time. What’s more, colder temperatures once kept the beetles away from high altitudes, yet now they swarm and kill trees on mountaintops. And in some high places where the beetles had a two-year life cycle because of cold temperatures, it’s decreased to one year.

Such shifts make it an exciting — and unsettling — time to be an entomologist. The growing swath of dead lodgepole and ponderosa pine forest is a grim omen, leaving Six — and many other scientists and residents in the West — concerned that as the climate continues to warm, these destructive changes will intensify.

“A couple of degrees warmer could create multiple generations a year,” she said, as she chopped off a piece of bark on a dead lodgepole pine to show the galleries of burrowing larvae. “If that happens, I expect it would be a disaster for all of our pine populations.”

Across western North America, from Mexico to Alaska, forest die-off is occurring on an extraordinary scale, unprecedented in at least the last century-and-a-half — and perhaps much longer. All told, the Rocky Mountains in Canada and the United States have seen nearly 70,000 square miles of forest — an area the size of Washington state — die since 2000. For the most part, this massive die-off is being caused by outbreaks of tree-killing insects, from the ips beetle in the Southwest that has killed pinyon pine, to the spruce beetle, fir beetle, and the major pest — the mountain pine beetle — that has hammered forests in the north.

These large-scale forest deaths from beetle infestations are likely a symptom of a bigger problem, according to scientists: warming temperatures and increased stress, due to a changing climate. Although western North America has been hardest hit by insect infestations, sizeable areas of forest in Australia, Russia, France, and other countries have experienced die-offs, most of which appears to have been caused by drought, high temperatures, or both.

One recent study collected reports of large-scale forest mortality from around the world. Often, forest death is patchy, and research is difficult because of the large areas involved. But the paper, recently published in Forest Ecology and Management, reported that in a 20,000-square-mile savanna in Australia, nearly a third of the trees were dead. In Russia, there was significant die-off within 9,400 square miles of forest. Much of Siberia has warmed by several degrees Fahrenheit in the past half-century, and hot, dry conditions have led to extreme wildfire seasons in eight of the last 10 years. Russian researchers also are concerned that warmer, dryer conditions will lead to increased outbreaks of the Siberian moth, which can destroy large swaths of Russia’s boreal forest.

While people in some places have the luxury to doubt whether climate change is real, it’s harder to be a doubter in the Rocky Mountains. Glaciers in Glacier National Park and elsewhere are shrinking, winters are warmer and shorter, and the intensity of forest fires is increasing. But the most obvious sign is the red and dead forests that carpet the hills and mountains. They have transformed life in many parts of the Rockies.

It has hit home for me on a personal level. Virtually every one of the hundreds of old-growth ponderosa pines on the 15 acres of land where I live near Helena, Montana is dead, and we are surrounded by a valley of dead and dying forest. Most trees have been logged and taken to a pulp mill, where they were turned into cardboard for boxes.

University of Montana ecologist Steve Running says warmer temperatures in the Rockies bring spring earlier and fall later, each by about a week, yet precipitation has remained about the same. That translates into a drought, and stressed trees are highly susceptible to beetle infestations. Wintertime minimum temperatures in the 1950s, meanwhile, ranged from 40 F to 50 F below zero. That’s risen to the 30-below range, and there are fewer days when minimums are reached. It’s not getting cold enough anymore to kill the beetles, which over-winter in their larval stage and survive the milder temperatures because they are filled with glycol, a natural anti-freeze.

In addition, the past suppression of fire and the fact that many Western trees are reaching the age at which beetles target them — 80 to 100 years — are also factors in the widespread loss of forests.

So the forests across the West are dying, in such large numbers that U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar called it the West’s Hurricane Katrina. In Colorado and southern Wyoming, the U.S. Forest Service has created an emergency management team to cut down dead trees around towns and along roads and power lines. Forest Service campgrounds and trails have been closed because of the hazard from dead trees, and communities surrounded by dead forests have drawn up emergency evacuation plans for residents.

Large-scale die-offs have occurred in the past. Mountain pine beetles are native to the West and are part of the ecosystem. Lodgepole forests regenerate through large-scale “stand replacing events,” which include fire and insects. The die-offs now, though, are on a scale unprecedented since the West was settled and are so big that they are having unusual impacts on ecosystems. The whitebark pine, once largely protected from the beetles because it grew at high altitudes and was shielded by cold, is functionally extinct and may no longer be able to feed grizzly bears and other species that love its high-fat nut. In Mexico, bark beetles are beginning to kill oyamel fir trees in a rare 139,000-acre biosphere preserve where the majority of North America’s monarch butterflies travel each fall to spend the winter. So far, about 100 acres in a core area of 33,000 acres have been killed by bark beetles.

Tree-killing bugs aren’t the only problem. In 2005 Colorado researchers noticed that aspens were suddenly dying in large numbers. That year they found 30,000 acres of dead aspen forest. The next year there were 150,000 acres, and in 2008 it had soared to 553,000. The die-off is called Sudden Aspen Death, or SAD. “It’s growing at an exponential rate,” said Wayne Shepperd, who researches aspen for the Forest Service. “It’s pretty sobering when you see a whole mountainside or whole drainage of aspen forest dead.”

Groves at low elevations and facing south are dying fastest, and scientists believe the cause is hotter temperatures and drier weather. It’s not only killing mature trees, but the root mass as well. An aspen grove is the offspring of a large single underground clonal mass, which sends up shoots. “The whole organism is disappearing and it has profound implications,” Shepperd said. “When the roots die, groves that are hundreds or thousands of years old aren’t going to be there anymore.”

If the die-offs continue, the loss of the aspen trees would be a blow to goshawks, songbirds, and a number of other species that find food and refuge in the groves.

Perhaps more than anyone, Craig Allen is familiar with these large-scale forest die-offs. A forest ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Jemez Mountain Field Station in New Mexico, not only are his office and home surrounded by a pinyon die-off, he also is the lead author of the paper — with 19 other authors —published in Forest Ecology and Management, which sought to document and begin to understand what is happening to forests in North America and around the world as the result of climate change.

Coming up with a definitive understanding at this point is impossible, Allen says. Forests are complex, and unfortunately, woefully understudied, and there isn’t nearly enough data to draw a conclusion about the reasons behind forest die-offs globally. “There’s huge information gaps and uncertainties,” says Allen.

What contributors were able to do in the paper is collect anecdotal reports of broad-scale forest mortality from around the world. “The point of this paper is to connect the dots, at least the ones we can connect,” says Allen. “We can’t even tell you for sure if there’s more forest mortality. There’s not consistent monitoring.”

In 2005 a strong El Nino caused a dramatic drought in the Amazon. It killed forest across the region and is extremely well documented because so many researchers had existing plots there. “The heart of the biggest rainforest in the world turned from a carbon sink to a carbon source,” said Allen. “If you have long-term drought you can bleed a lot carbon into the atmosphere.”

A lot of beetles can also turn vast tracks of forest from carbon sinks to carbon sources. Take British Columbia, which is ground zero for the mountain pine beetle infestation in North America. Some 53,000 square miles of mature pine forest is dead and the province is projected to lose 80 percent of its mature trees by 2013. The second largest known die-off there occurred in the 1980s and claimed just 2,300 square miles. Bill Wilson — the province’s director of Industry, Trade and Economics Research — said he has flown in a plane for hours over the province and seen nothing but dead forest the entire time.

In 2008, so much of British Columbia’s forests had died they also went from being a net carbon sink to carbon source.

Diana Six works in Africa where she has seen other die-offs first-hand. “In Africa where I work, suddenly whole hillsides are dropping dead,” she said. “It’s happening so fast people are in shock. It’s a tragedy.” Species include the quiver tree, camel-thorn, and the giant euphorbia, a 30-foot-tall succulent. The causes are not known, but the suspects are hotter and drier weather, or shifting rainfall patterns.

All told, the paper that Allen co-authored describes 88 well-documented forest die-offs around the world, going back as far as the 1960s and 1970s, although most are in the 1990s and 2000s.

If there was a way to predict die-offs, Allen said, land managers could take preemptive action, such as mechanical thinning or prescribed burning to increase the vigor of forests.

What gives researchers pause is that many of these large die-offs have occurred with minimal warming, in just a few years. In the West, for example, the average temperature has warmed on average 1.8 F over the past century. “This is before we put two to four degrees centigrade (3.6 F to 7.2 F) into the system,” said Allen, referring to forecasts for warming by the end of this century. Trees across the world are stressed already from fragmentation, air pollution, and other problems, he said. “I don’t know how much stress the forests of the world can take,” said Allen.

JR:  One final point:  This catastrophic climate change impact and its carbon-cycle feedback were not foreseen even a decade ago — which suggests future climate impacts will bring other equally unpleasant surprises, especially if we don’t reverse our emissions path immediately.

Related Post:

• Science: Global warming is killing U.S. trees, a dangerous carbon-cycle feedback
• Nature on stunning new climate feedback: Beetle tree kill releases more carbon than fires

Peter Sinclair, our favorite climate de-crocker, has a new video on the subject:

Sinclair, of course, is the guy who proved former TV weatherman Anthony Watts knows as much about copyright laws as about climate science.

More “Climate Crock of the Week” videos here.

Nevada Wind Turbine Factory to Create 1,000 Jobs, Backers Say

A consortium of Chinese and American renewable energy firms said last week that they had chosen Nevada as the location of a 320,000-square-foot wind turbine manufacturing and assembly plant.

The turbine plant, whose precise site has yet to be announced, will create an estimated 1,000 long-term manufacturing jobs in the state and is expected to be up and running by 2011.

Two companies leading the development of the Nevada facility, A-Power Energy Generation Systems, a Chinese renewable energy technology manufacturer, and the U.S. Renewable Energy Group, a private equity firm, are also key players in a controversial $1.5 billion, 600-megawatt wind farm project under way in West Texas.

That project, announced last year, came under fire after it was revealed that its backers planned to tap $450 million in grants from the economic stimulus package, even though the turbines would be manufactured and assembled in Shenyang, China.

The companies subsequently said that at least 70 percent of the turbine components for the Texas wind farm would be manufactured in the United States.

Now it appears some turbines for the Texas project may come from the Nevada facility.

“If the Nevada plant is operational before all the turbines for the 600-megawatt Texas wind farm have been delivered, the remaining turbines could be supplied from the Nevada plant,” Ed Cunningham, managing partner of the U.S. Renewable Energy Group, said in a statement.

Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, along with three other Democratic senators, recently introduced legislation that would apply a so-called “buy American” standard to all renewable energy projects that seek stimulus funds, requiring them to rely on goods manufactured in the United States.

Currently, this provision applies only to government-sponsored projects. As a result, roughly three-quarters of the stimulus’s $1.9 billion in wind-energy grants distributed so far have gone to foreign-owned companies, according toan analysis by the Investigative Reporting Workshop, a nonprofit journalism program affiliated with American University.

Matt Rogers, a senior adviser to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, confirmedthat this analysis was likely accurate, but said that although the stimulus funds may have gone to foreign companies, the funds created 17,000 United States jobs and supported investments in the United States worth roughly $10 billion.

The Nevada project does not appear to be seeking stimulus funds, with its backers stating that it will be built using private financing.

A spokesman for A-Power and the U.S. Renewable Energy Group also said the companies had not yet received — or even applied for — any stimulus funds for the West Texas wind farm project.

Governors seek wind energy boost

A coalition representing governors of 29 states is urging the federal government to take steps to boost wind energy, such as a renewable energy standard requiring utilities to produce at least 10 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2012.

The bipartisan Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition plans to make the recommendations Tuesday in a report to Congress and the White House. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the report ahead of its official release.

The report comes as Senate sponsors of a climate bill prepare to unveil their legislation, perhaps as soon as this week.

“We offer our assistance in working with Congress and the administration to achieve one of the nation’s principal energy goals, energy independence, and increasing the role that wind energy plays in meeting that challenge,” wrote the coalition’s chairman, Iowa Democratic Gov. Chet Culver, and its vice chairman, GOP Gov. Donald Carcieri of Rhode Island, in a letter to congressional leaders. A nearly identical letter was sent to President Barack Obama.

The governors said that although the House began to address increasing wind power’s role in climate legislation it passed last year, they are anxious to see the Senate follow through.

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said that the House bill “includes many key provisions, including a renewable energy standard, that would boost renewable energy sources and create thousands of new jobs in this sector. The speaker looks forward to the Senate moving forward on comprehensive energy and climate legislation, so that a bill can be sent to the president this year.”

The office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declined to comment. The White House had no immediate comment.

The report, titled “Great Expectations,” noted that some states have renewable energy standards but others don’t.

“These standards vary considerably from state to state, complicating compliance by the electric-power and renewable-energy industries,” the report said.

Other recommendations by the group include:

_Developing new infrastructure for electricity transmission to provide access to renewable energy resources.

_Funding technology to develop wind energy in “wind-rich” coastal areas.

_Streamlining the permitting process for wind energy projects.

_Extending an economic stimulus grant program for wind projects, and providing a long-term extension of a wind energy production tax credit.

Investing in Our Renewable Future

Today, standing under the sun-filled skies of Los Angeles, a large coalition of business, labor, and environmental leaders launched a renewable energy plan that will change the way we achieve our green energy goals.

We unveiled our Carbon Reduction Surcharge proposal that will raise close to $170 million for investment in green energy and energy efficiency programs. Every penny will be placed into a Renewable Energy and Efficiency Trust Fund – a lock-box that will not only provide dedicated revenue for clean energy, but create a level of transparency and accountability that has been missing.

Get the facts about the new rates and the Carbon Surcharge plan

For the first time, Angelenos will know exactly how much they are investing and exactly what they are getting for their investment. The Carbon Surcharge will be added to a new rate structure at our Water and Power department. Because the price of energy has been rising, our Water and Power department needs a significant rate increase to keep the lights on and to get out of a financial hole. But raising rates only to continue to invest in dirty fossil fuels that we know are only going to become more scarce and more expensive makes no sense.

Our new rate structure will include the Carbon Reduction Surcharge to begin to wean Los Angeles from its dependence on fossil fuels. The good news is that for the majority of ratepayers, the monthly bill will only increase by roughly $2.50-$3.50. Efficient users will pay less. Wasteful users will pay more.

Our renewable plan will be the cleanest, greenest, most transparent jobs program in the country. This is an unprecedented, crucial step towards addressing both the long-term crisis of climate change and our dependence on fossil fuels, and the short-term crisis of this recession and the dire need to create jobs in Los Angeles.

UAW to Congress: Don’t block EPA climate rules

The United Auto Workers is pressing Congress to oppose resolutions that would nullify EPA’s “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases threaten human health. The union has the ear of Democrats in states with a heavy auto industry presence such as Michigan and Ohio.

The endangerment finding isued late last year is a precursor to upcoming climate change rules. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) thus far has 40 cosponsors for a filibuster-proof resolution that would overturn the finding. House versions have also been introduced. Murkowski and her supporters fear the effects of EPA rules on stationary sources like power plants and factories.

But the UAW, echoing White House concerns, said in a letter to Congress Monday that the resolutions would upend a pending national auto mileage and emissions standard. This would end up “subjecting auto manufacturers to all of the burdens that the one national standard was designed to avoid,” the letter states. Automakers have also said they want the national plan to proceed.

Climate Cover-up

The science continues to point to the cold, hard fact that global warming is happening and will get worse, but the number of people who believe this scientific certainty has declined over the past year, leaving environmentalists and climate scientists scratching their heads in disbelief.

The reason for all of this uncertainty, argues James Hoggan, author of Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (Greystone Books, $15), is a concerted effort by public relations professionals to undermine climate change science and create uncertainty among the public — all to please clients who would be negatively affected by meaningful carbon legislation to curb emissions.

So how does Hoggan know all this? As a public relations professional himself, he has seen it with his own eyes.

As president of a successful public relations firm and co-author of the DeSmogBlog.com, which reports on PR pollution that clouds climate science, Hoggan works with Richard Littlemore to ruthlessly report on his industry’s ingenious tactics to hijack the global warming debate — all with the compliance of media and leaders in government and business.

To give readers a clear idea of how badly some PR firms and their clients have muddied the global warming debate, Hoggan goes back to 1988, when the great scientific bodies and even politicians were both convinced that humans were causing climate change and concerned enough to do something about it.

Three decades later and people are still debating the science. Meanwhile, the Earth continues to warm.

So what happened? According to Hoggan, public relations firms have been hard at work, using a number of schemes to insure that climate change remains a debate.

For example, over the years there has been an explosion in the number of think tanks and organizations like The Heritage Foundation, Friends of Science and Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, which all have the common goal of countering any progress toward changing the way we create and consume energy.

Another common tactic used by public relations firms is to recruit and promote so-called “experts” who will debate scientific facts published in peer-reviewed journals. Upon further scrutiny, these experts usually lack scientific credentials or they are funded by groups that raise questions about their impartiality.

But by far one of the most frustrating tactics used by PR firms is to systematically dissect all reputable conclusions on climate change to emphasize that there is not 100 percent certainty that global warming is occurring; therefore, we shouldn’t do anything about it.

However, as Hoggan brilliantly points out, this logic is inherently faulty when applied to other situations.

For example, “If scientists told you there was a 90 percent likelihood that your plane would crash, you would assuredly forgo the trip,” he writes.

It is this kind of common sense logic combined with in-depth, investigative reporting that makes Climate Cover-Up well worth the read. After all, if people are made aware of the tactics being used to keep the climate issue a “debate,” hopefully that information will help arm them against future dishonest claims about climate change.

Americans Could Reduce Emissions 15% Through Simple Actions

Two new studies highlight the disparity between what the public can do, and wants to do, to address energy issues and carbon emissions resulting from lifestyles.

An analysis released by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) finds that Americans can reduce U.S. carbon pollution by 15%–or one billion tons of global warming pollution–through collective personal actions that require little to no cost.

Suggested behavioral changes in the study include: reducing unwanted catalog subscriptions, decreasing vehicle idling, using a programmable thermostat, replacing seven lightbulbs with CFLs, setting computers to hibernate mode, shutting off unused lights, and eating poultry in place of red meat two days per week. All of the recommendations offered in the study are available to be adopted immediately, at little or no cost, and will reduce not only emissions, but home energy, transportation and food costs as well.

The analysis details how each of the common sense actions can result in significant emissions reductions when implemented across the country. For example, if Americans collectively cut personal food waste by 25%, the nation could eliminate 65 million tons of greenhouse gases, which is approximately the emissions generated from 11 million cars–or roughly all the cars in New York and Missouri combined.

The findings were presented this week by NRDC executive director Peter Lehnerat at the Garrison Institute’s Climate Mind and Behavior symposium, which convened leading thinkers and practitioners in the fields of climate change and environmental advocacy, neuro-, behavioral and evolutionary economics, psychology, policy-making, investing and social media.

Participants in the symposium were tasked with working together on ways to get individuals to shift behavior on a large scale, and sketched out dozens of new collaborations, from community organizing to building management to communications and social networking–all designed to actualize the massive potential for positive climate impacts through individual choices and behavior shifts.

“Neo-classical economics provides a powerful model for thinking about the world, but new research in behavioral economics highlights the ways in which neo-classical economics only give us a partial view,” said Rebecca Henderson, co-director of the Harvard Business School’s Business and Environmental Initiative and a participant in the symposium. “Behavioral economics may be able to help us make progress on meeting the challenges of climate change; the new research points out how our decisions are driven not only by self-interest and the dynamics of the market but also by our emotions, by our commitments to the communities of which we are part, and by our innate sense of fairness. I think this work has the potential to help us design and implement large-scale behavioral changes, not only on the individual level, but in organizations, policies and markets.”

On The Flip Side

Three out of four consumers are concerned by energy and climate change issues, but nearly two-thirds say that using less energy is not the answer to reducing reliance on fossil fuels or foreign energy supply, according a survey of 9,000 individuals in 22 countries.

The survey by Accenture (NYSE: ACN) also shows that almost nine out of ten consumers want more government intervention in the energy market.

“We cannot address climate change or energy security unless we both create new sources of clean energy and reduce consumer demand,” said Sander van ’t Noordende, Group Chief Executive of Accenture’s Resources operating group. “But our survey shows that consumers do not think lower energy use is a priority. It will take many years before renewable alternatives come fully on stream. Until they do, governments and energy companies will have to find creative ways to transform consumer habits and improve energy efficiency.”

Some survey highlights:

• 90% of consumers are concerned or extremely concerned by rising energy costs and 76% by the prospect of energy shortages
• 89% think it important or very important to reduce their country’s reliance on fossil fuels. However, only a third of respondents say cutting energy should be the top priority in addressing energy issues.
• Only 22% of consumers surveyed unreservedly trust energy companies to take actions to address energy challenges.
• Almost a third (32%) do not trust them to do so and 46% trust them only if they have direction from governments.

The Accenture survey also found that consumers prefer energy to be provided from domestically owned companies. Nearly three quarters (72%) are not comfortable with energy companies being owned by foreign owned companies. Sentiment against foreign ownership is strongest in the Netherlands (88%), followed by the United States and Italy (81%). Consumers in Spain (60%), the Middle East (53%) and India (33%) are least worried by foreign ownership.

Progressives leaders look to industry for help in climate bill

As he toured union halls and factory floors in his 2006 Senate campaign, Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown repeatedly railed against the “prescription bill the drug companies wrote,” the “energy bill the oil companies wrote” and all the other policy decisions dominated by special interests.

Now halfway through his first Senate term, Brown seems to see at least one major Washington policy push differently.

Brown is one of a handful of senators trying to line up support for a climate bill that would put new limits on greenhouse gas emissions and spur production of renewable energy.

And surprising as it may seem, the heart of those senators’ strategy is to woo special interests — major electric utilities, steel and cement producers, farmers and coal and oil companies.

“I know, it doesn’t sound like me,” Brown conceded on a recent afternoon. But in his own defense, he added, “I really do think this is different. I think people understand that if industry doesn’t — if this doesn’t work for them, if this doesn’t keep them in business . . . it hurts the country.”

Whatever else, it’s the education of a junior senator.

Brown, along with Senate climate negotiators and the Obama administration, has embraced one of Washington’s enduring realities: It’s easier to get agreement on a major policy issue if powerful business groups are inside the tent helping to shape the decisions, instead of outside the tent working to blow it down.

In the case of efforts to craft a climate bill, business support is deemed so crucial that, before meeting with President Obama and some swing-vote senators at the White House last week, the bill’s architects sat down with a group of industry lobbyists who are members of a U.S. Chamber of Commerce energy committee.

White House Green Trade Agenda an Opportunity for Global Leadership

If President Obama is to deliver on his ambitious goal of doubling U.S. exports in five years, it will be essential for the United States to pursue an aggressive strategy to help American businesses access international markets. One promising place to begin is at the intersection of trade and the environment.

On the heels of the announcement by Wal-Mart Stores that it will push carbon out of its supply chain, the Obama administration sent new signals this month in its annual trade policy agenda that it will use some government muscle to advance a series of environmentally-friendly trade policies. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative set out an ambitious plan to open foreign markets for U.S. exports, which includes significant mention of policies designed to open and regulate trade for environmental purposes.

One of those efforts is to lower or eliminate barriers to environmentally friendly goods and services. The Obama administration indicated that it would seek “to fast-track the elimination of tariffs on goods directly relevant to addressing climate change, such as solar panels and stoves, and wind and hydraulic turbines,” breathing life into an effort that has been languishing in Geneva as part of the long-stalled Doha Round of global trade negotiations. USTR’s indication that it would work with “like-minded and ambitious WTO members” suggests they may move forward on a green trade agreement even without the rest of the Doha Round, a move that the National Foreign Trade Council supports.

The administration has also focused on promoting American ideas and protecting the intellectual property behind U.S. clean technologies. Making sure U.S. trading partners enforce IP rules overseas helps spur investment and jobs in the United States and creates the conditions which can facilitate research and sharing of technologies with other countries.

One potential deliverable in this area this year is the establishment of a technology cooperation mechanism, which was written into the Copenhagen climate accord. As negotiators seek to flesh out the idea, U.S. trade policymakers will be called on to propose new forums and financing mechanisms to build trust and spur collaboration between U.S. companies and researchers and counterparts in developing countries. Devising a mechanism which relies on the current system of intellectual property rules, and which uses financing to make up funding gaps and strengthen legal protections abroad, would benefit U.S. exporters and our partners in the developing world.

The trade policy agenda also highlights a host of other environmentally-oriented trade priorities, from promoting sustainable tropical timber trade to reducing subsidies that contribute to overfishing. On paper, the environment is clearly an important part of the administration’s trade agenda.

Environmentally-friendly trade policies should be a high priority for the administration this year. Securing access to international markets would help create clean energy jobs in the United States. Lowering trade barriers would reduce the cost of environmental technologies globally and increase access to those technologies, particularly in developing countries where trade barriers are often the highest. Promoting global enforcement of intellectual property rules – and developing new structures that support research collaboration based on compliance with those rules – could benefit U.S. innovators and facilitate better commercial relations between the United States and partners around the world.

Green trade is also bipartisan. Lowering barriers to clean technologies and protecting and promoting U.S. innovation are as American as apple pie. These initiatives enjoy support from a diverse group that includes Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar and Congressmen Kevin Brady and Rick Larsen. Delivering on a green trade agenda would provide an opportunity to lead on trade without the partisan baggage that is attached to much of the trade agenda.

In a year where progress on domestic carbon-pricing legislation or in global climate negotiations may be slow, green trade also offers chances to demonstrate global leadership on the environment.

This is not to say that fulfilling such an agenda will be easy. Negotiations for a green trade agreement will present a host of complicated questions for the Obama administration, including whether to negotiate lower barriers to sensitive imports like ethanol and automobiles. Collaborating on clean technology development and deployment may require new sources of financing and delicate negotiations with partners in the developing world.

Defending U.S. interests internationally will also be a challenge, given the importance countries like China have placed on developing local industries through a mixture of tariffs, subsidies and standards. (The National Foreign Trade Council today released a lengthyreview of China’s renewable energy sector, which details promotional measures its government has taken “by directly or indirectly stimulating demand for Chinese-made renewable energy equipment.”)

But as the United States seeks to rely less on the U.S. consumer to drive economic growth, the administration will need new mechanisms to help U.S. businesses export more of what they produce. Environmentally-friendly trade policies offer fresh opportunities to deliver benefits for American businesses and workers, provided that the administration is willing to spend some serious time and energy to see them through.

How much carbon dioxide (CO₂) is produced when different fuels are burned?

How much CO₂ does the United States emit? Is it more than other countries?

What are the largest sources of total greenhouse gas emissions by sector for the United States?

Where can I find emission factors for greenhouse gases and air pollutants?

How much of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are associated with electricity generation?

What are the largest sources of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by fuel?

What are greenhouse gases and how do they affect the climate?

Why do carbon dioxide emissions weigh more than the original fuel?

Does EIA report water vapor emissions data?

How does the hole in the ozone layer affect global warming?

How do I convert between short tons and metric tons?

The former Hewlett Packard executive hopes to unseat Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who has championed clean energy legislation as the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee. In a new online advertisement created by Sen. Jim Inhofe’s (R-OK) nephew Fred Davis, the Fiorina campaign portrays Boxer as a giant floating head ominously looming over California. A gravel-voiced narrator claims that Boxer is “indifferent” that her climate policies “would take already painful jobless numbers and make them dramatically worse”:

NARRATOR: Proclaiming a cap-and-trade bill would clean the environment, indifferent that it would take already painful jobless numbers and make them dramatically worse.

BOXER: “That’s where you’ll have a little bit of an increase in electricity prices…”

NARRATOR: Even President Obama says electricity rates will skyrocket. And the Wall Street Journal says it is likely to be the biggest tax increase in history.

However, less than two years ago, Fiorina was singing a different tune. Speaking at the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, MN, she praised Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) cap-and-trade plan as something that would “both create jobs and lower the cost of energy”:

I know John McCain. And in 2013, America will be more energy-independent because of his determination that we must power our own country, and his long-standing commitment to protecting our environment. John McCain will create a cap-and-trade system that will encourage the development of alternative energy sources. He will help advance clean coal technology, and nuclear power. And all of this will both create jobs and lower the cost of energy.

Watch a montage:

Like McCain’s plan, Boxer’s climate legislation marries a market-based cap on carbon pollution with support for alternative energy sources, including nuclear power and advanced coal technology. The revenues generated from a cap on carbon pollution will protect electricity consumers from the cost of investing in new jobs and ending dependence on oil, as Boxer has explained last year:

We must get these greenhouse gas emissions out of the air because if the planet continues to warm, we’re in a whole lot of trouble. Pretty much everyone agrees on that. Now, that means we have to move to clean energy and away from imported oil and those Middle East dictators. That’s good. We’ll move to clean energy. It will be better for our health and our families. That’s good. What about this transition period, as we move away from the dirty fuels and dirty coal to clean coal, to clean fuels, to solar, wind and geothermal? That’s where you’ll have a little bit of an increase in electricity prices. However, with a cap-and-trade system, you will have an incoming stream of revenues just as you do from the acid rain program, an incoming stream of revenues. And those revenues will make consumers whole. They will never pay any more. And that’s just the facts.

Analyses by the Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Information Administration, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Congressional Budget Office show that Boxer (and Fiorina circa 2008) is indeed telling the facts.

However, Fiorina 2010 seems to have decided to get her policy advice from one of her first endorsers, global warming denier Jim Inhofe.

– Brad Johhson

JR:  The rest of this post is written by me.

Fiorina’s new ad also mocks Boxer for saying “One of the very important national security threats we face right now is climate change.”  Fiorina was CEO of HP, until, Wikipedia notes, “In 2005, the Hewlett-Packard board forced Fiorina to resign.”  Ironically, HP itself has been unequivocal about climate science.  This is from their Global Citizenship Report 2008:

Our planet’s climate is changing, and scientific consensus is that greenhouse gas (GHG)¹ emissions are the main culprit. The effects are forecasted to be far-reaching and substantial. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, warned that unmitigated climate change would likely trigger a range of environmental problems threatening agriculture, natural habitats and communities in low-lying coastal areas.

The economic toll will be high as well. The cost of responding and adapting to unmitigated climate change could reach between 5 and 20 percent of annual global gross domestic product (GDP), according to the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Released in 2006, the report also estimates that mitigating climate change instead would cost approximately one percent of global GDP each year. To stave off these potential issues, negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are aiming for an agreement in 2009 to reduce global emissions by at least 50 percent (compared with 1990 levels) by 2050….²

Hmm.  I wonder what conservative intellectual leader Newt Gingrich would say about HP having a Global Citizenship Report? — see Gingrich sums up conservative ethos: “I am not a citizen of the world! I think the entire concept is intellectual nonsense and stunningly dangerous.” But I digress.

Kinda sad when a corporation understands the threat to our national security from unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions more than the person who once ran it.

Related Post:

• Pentagon: “Climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked”

Irony derives from the Greek eironeia (”dissimulation”), the term given to the action and speech of the eiron, or “dissembler,” a stock character in Greek comedy. The first recorded use is the Republic by Plato where “Socrates himself takes on the role of the eiron” and feigns ignorance as he asks “seemingly innocuous and naive questions which gradually undermine his interlocutor’s case,” trapping him “into seeing the truth.” Many Greeks did not see the truth the way Socrates did-they put him to death-so eiron also carries the sense “sly deceiver” or “hypocritical rascal.”

I have previously written about Socratic irony–whereby an eloquent, sophisticated speaker pretends to be a blunt everyman (see Why scientists aren’t more persuasive, Part 2: Why deniers out-debate “smart talkers”).

Eirons are a stock character in popular culture, most commonly found on police dramas — think Peter Falk’s Lt. Columbo. In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Marc Antony takes on the role of the eiron when he pretends to praise those who killed Caesar even as he whips up the Roman crowd against them after Caesar is assassinted on the Idea of March. Antony says “I am no orator, as Brutus is, But–as you know me all–a plain blunt man.” It is a mark of eirons and wily orators that they accuse their opponents of being rhetoricians.

Lincoln opened his masterful February 1859 Cooper Union speech echoing Shakespeare’s Antony: “The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them.” (In Antony’s own words, “I only speak right on; I tell you that which you yourselves do know.”)

VERBAL IRONY

A second type of irony is best called “verbal irony.” For the Roman rhetoricians, such as Cicero, ironia denoted a rhetorical figure of speech “in which, for the most part, the meaning was contrary to the words.” To borrow a chiasmus from A Dictionary of Literary Terms, “at its simplest, verbal irony involves not meaning what one says, but saying what one means.”

The first mention in English is in 1502: ‘yronye … by the whiche a man sayth one & gyveth to understande the contrarye.” Verbal irony is a trope, from the Greek for turn, since it is a figure of speech that turns or changes the meaning of a word away from its literal meaning (like metaphor).

Verbal irony is an essential element of certain kinds of speeches, especially those that occur in a debate or are similarly aimed at disputing a point or rebuking an opponent. Using verbal irony is a powerful means of turning your opponent’s argument against him or her, by revealing a deeper truth that utterly undercuts that argument. Verbal irony is the way to call your opponent a liar without calling your opponent a “liar.”

Two speeches capture the essence — and importance — of irony better than any other. The first is by Shakespeare, the second by Lincoln. Marc Antony’s “Friends, Romans, Countrymen” speech in the Roman Forum is a model of rhetorical brilliance — and was a model for Lincoln.

Brutus, in his Forum speech, had just convinced the crowd the assassination of Caesar was justified. He convinced them so well that some citizens were persuaded, ironically, that he should be the new Caesar. In making his case, Brutus used the word “honor” four times. Since Brutus was widely respected for his honor, since he directly links the citizens’ belief in him to that very honor, Antony needs to attack that quality in him, but do so indirectly, since Brutus has won the crowd completely over.

Cleverly, Antony himself uses the word “honorable” ten times in this one speech. He repeatedly says Brutus is an honourable man and that all of the conspirators are honourable. His irony is increasingly blatant:

When that the poor have cried, Cæsar hath wept;
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.

With this drumbeat, Antony convinces the crowd that there was no justification for killing Caesar, which in turns means the murder was a dishonorable act. For a final knockout punch, Antony reveals the existence of Caesar’s will to the citizens, showing them the parchment he describes as the final testament of Caesar’s love for them. The citizens beg him to read the will. Antony slyly says

I have o’ershot myself to tell you of it.
I fear I wrong the honourable men
Whose daggers have stabb’d Caesar; I do fear it.

The crowd is now his. One citizen shouts, “They were traitors,” and then spits out, “Honourable men!” This speech is a treatise on verbal irony.

Irony is about having the actual meaning of the words turn out to be the opposite of their literal meaning. Antony uses irony to negate the meaning of “honor” and “honorable” as it applies to Caesar’s murderers, using verbal daggers to repeatedly stab Brutus’s reputation. His speech is aimed at stirring the Roman citizens to revenge and murder. It works.

In his crowd-pleasing and career-making Cooper Union speech, Abraham Lincoln used the same rhetorical strategy as Antony-ironic repetition. Much as Antony was not directly debating Brutus, but giving a speech right after him, Lincoln was not directly debating Stephen Douglas, but giving a speech a few months after him. He was offering a very different answer on the crucial “question,” as Douglas called it: Is the federal government forbidden from controlling “slavery in our Federal Territories”? Lincoln starts by quoting Douglas for his New York audience:

In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in The New York Times, Senator Douglas said:

“Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now.”

I fully endorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse.

“What is the frame of government under which we live?” Lincoln asks rhetorically, as if to clarify Douglas. He immediately helps the audience, “The answer must be: ‘The Constitution of the United States.’ ” He does this so that he can define the “our fathers” in Douglas’s speech as the thirty-nine men who signed the Constitution: “I take these ‘thirty-nine,’ for the present,” Lincoln says, “as being ‘our fathers who framed the Government under which we live.’ ”

Then Lincoln begins his brilliant analysis to show that Douglas’s words were, in fact, ironic. Douglas had said plainly that the framers of the U.S. government not only understood the slavery issue better than the people in the mid-1800s, but also that they agreed with Douglas. Lincoln grants that the framers understood the slavery issue better but proves that they agreed with him. He examines the voting record of the thirty-nine framers of the Constitution to show that

… twenty-one–a clear majority of the whole–certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories; while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question better than we.

Just as Antony threw Brutus’s words back in his face, so, too, does Lincoln with Douglas’s words. In a masterpiece of ironical repetition comparable to Antony’s more famous speech, Lincoln repeats the word “fathers” thirty times, repeats the number “thirty-nine” twenty times, and repeats the entire phrase “Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live” and the phrase “better than we,” a remarkable twenty-two times, presumably with a more ironic tone of voice each time (just as a great actor playing Antony would with the word “honorable”), drawing considerable laughter and applause. This is the speech of a man who read Shakespeare often–and aloud.

With a single electrifying speech, masterfully using Socratic irony and verbal irony, as well as a number of other figures, Honest Abe jump-started a campaign that would win him the Republican nomination and ultimately the presidency.

The Cooper Union speech is not as well known to the public as many of Lincoln’s as other speeches, but it is as brilliant and as important to his career as any. The discussion here draws on Harold Holzer’s book, “Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President,” a must read for students of Lincoln or rhetoric.

Related Posts:

• How to be as persuasive as Abraham Lincoln, Part 1: Study the figures of speech and Shakespeare
• “The greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor”: How to be as persuasive as Lincoln, 3
• How Lincoln framed his picture-perfect Gettysburg Address, 4: Extended metaphor

I have been interviewing leading experts on geo-engineering about this conference, including journalist Jeff Goodell, author of the forthcoming book, How to Cool the Planet.

This conference proclaims its lofty goal “to develop norms and guidelines for controlled experimentation on climate engineering or intervention techniques.”  That’s one reason why, as Goodell put it to me, it “needs to be purer than pure.”  It appears to fail that test in a number of respects, as we will see.

Readers know I am not the biggest fan of the geoengineering to begin with (see articles here).

The more you know about geo-engineering, the less sense it makes (see Science: “Optimism about a geoengineered ‘easy way out’ should be tempered by examination of currently observed climate changes”).  The most “plausible” approach, massive aerosol injection, has potentially catastrophic impacts of its own and can’t possibly substitute for the most aggressive mitigation — see Caldeira calls the vision of Lomborg’s Climate Consensus “a dystopic world out of a science fiction story.” I will be publishing an analysis later this week on a central if not fatal flaw of aerosol injection.

For the anti-science disinformers and big fossil fuel polluters, geo-engineering is mostly just a ploy — see British coal industry flack pushes geo-engineering “ploy” to give politicians “viable reason to do nothing” about global warming. For the many uninformed contrarians in the world, it’s a ticket to media controversy and publicity (see Error-riddled ‘Superfreakonomics’: New book pushes global cooling myths, sheer illogic, and “patent nonsense” and  “Superfreakonomics author Dubner is baffled that Caldeira ‘doesn’t believe geoengineering can work without cutting emissions.’ “)

Geo-engineering is, literally, a “smoke and mirrors solution,” though most people understand that the “mirrors” strategy is prohibitively expensive and impractical.

Let me state clearly that those participants I know personally are absolutely first rate scientists and academics, starting with the chair of the Scientific Organizing Committee [SOC], Dr. Michael MacCracken.  I have known him for a long time and have the greatest respect for him and his work (see “Video and PPTs of “The Science of Climate Change” with Dr. Christopher Field and Dr. Michael MacCracken“).

Here’s the conference’s ambitious goal:

The International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies aims to minimize the risks associated with scientific research on climate intervention or climate geoengineering, much as the 1975 Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA successfully modeled safe and appropriate laboratory management methodologies. The Asilomar Conference will focus exclusively on the development of risk reduction guidelines for climate intervention experiments.

Goals of the Asilomar Conference:

1. Identify potential risks associated with climate intervention experiments
2. Propose a system to assess experiment design for potential categorical risks and suggest precautions to assure their safe conduct
3. Propose voluntary standards for climate intervention research for the international scientific community

Certainly these are laudable goals, assuming one has bought into geoengineering.  Some environmental groups around the world have questioned the whole point of this conference — see the ETC Group’s “open letter to the Climate Response Fund and the Scientific Organizing Committee,” with dozens of signatory groups, which argues:

The priority at this time is not to sort out the conditions under which this experimentation might take place but, rather, whether or not the community of nations and peoples believes that geoengineering is technically, legally, socially, environmentally and economically acceptable.

I will come back to issues surrounding the Climate Response Fund [CRF] (and perhaps the ETC’s issues) in a later post.

My focus here is on the choice of sole Strategic Partner, The State of Victoria, Australia.

On the one hand, Australia is the canary in the coal mine for human-caused climate change, since it is the most arid habited continent to start with — as I have discussed many times see “Absolute must read: Australia today offers horrific glimpse of U.S. Southwest, much of planet, post-2040, if we don’t slash emissions soon and also Australian Scientists: Contrary to media reports, “our paper does not discount climate change as playing a role in this most recent drought, the ‘Big Dry’. In fact, there are indications that climate change has worsened this recent drought.” So one can greatly understand their desire to explore every option to diminish impacts from greenhouse gas emissions.

On the other hand, as Wikipedia reports:

Brown coal is Victoria’s leading mineral, with 66 million tonnes mined each year for electricity generation in the Latrobe Valley, Gippsland. The region is home to the world’s largest known reserves of brown coal

Brown coal, aka lignite, “is considered the lowest rank of coal“:

Carbon dioxide emissions from brown coal fired plants are generally much higher than for comparable black coal plants, with the world’s worst polluting being the brown coal fueled Hazelwood Power Station, Victoria. The operation of brown coal plants, particularly in combination with strip mining, can be politically contentious due to environmental concerns.

And here’s some more news:  “In 1992, the station was scheduled to be decommissioned by 2005 due to its excessive carbon dioxide emissions, however, a decision by the Victorian Government in 2005 allowed the power station to remain operational until 2031.”

For an environmentalist perspective on brown coal and Australia, see “Australia’s brown coal shame“:

Here in Australia, we export hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal each year and now the state of Victoria wants to export even more of it….

Australians have the highest carbon impact per capita and it’s no coincidence that Victoria has the highest power generation emissions in the nation; thanks to brown coal.

So maybe Victoria was not the best choice as the sole strategic partner for this landmark geo-engineering conference.

Indeed, Goodell framed this conference as “the moment geo-engineering comes out of the closet.”  He says it’s very easy to dismiss geo-engineering as “crackpot” science and if geo-engineering wants to get taken seriously, “everything needs to be purer than pure.”

Goodell’s book is a must-read if you want to understand the players in geo-engineering.  He told me this conference has been played up as a “historic event” the “Woodstock of geo-engineering,” and that “invites a high level of scrutiny.”  That’s what Climate Progress aims to deliver!

I asked him what he thought about having Victoria be the sole strategic partner for this conference.  He said

I think it looks awful on two levels.

First, there has always been the concern that fossil fuel interests (and others) are promoting what he calls a “fantasy version of geo-engineering” that suggests geoengineering can replace mitigation.  Thus, “To have a big coal state in Australia as a major sponsor is bad politics.”  Second, “this is being played as a historic event.  Why not have more strategic partners?”

He added, “This is a real test for the geo-engineering community and how seriously this is all taken.”

I asked MacCracken for his response to these concerns.  He wrote:

I was not aware that brown coal is the state of Victoria’s leading mineral, nor that it was home to the world’s largest known reserves of brown coal. I have been aware that virtually all of Australia is in severe drought due to the southward shift of the storm track that brings precipitation to most of settled Australia, and that the recent rains they have had were so heavy that they led to extensive flooding. As Dr. Mark Howden of CSIRO made clear in invited guest talks at a recent USGCRP impacts assessment meeting in Chicago, changes in the traditional climate of Australia are having very severe and surprisingly early impacts. Even were the world to go to zero emissions tomorrow, there would very likely be further worsening of the increasing water resource stresses, and so it has not seemed unusual that the State of Victoria is interested in the potential for geoengineering. In pursuing this interest, they have, very much to their credit chosen to be a part of major international consideration of this issue. In addition, were the amount of carbon emissions (total or per capita basis), or the amount of carbon emissions from coal, to be the criterion for deciding what entities could support research on approaches that could complement mitigation (so both adaptation and geoengineering), that would seem to rule out some rather significant entities.

First, the SOC has been set up independent of the CRF to handle the scientific program for and participation at the Conference. The SOC is an internationally distinguished group from a range of countries, types of institution, and interests-they are independent of each other, of the Climate Institute, and of the CRF. By our agreement (which she was instrumental in setting up to ensure independence), Dr. Leinen has not been involved in developing the program for the Conference or on decisions on to whom invitations were extended (invitations were the basis for providing first access to funds to support travel to and from the Conference and the cost of staying at Asilomar).

On the question of the sources of funding, the SOC has asked from the beginning about the funders of the Conference because it is indeed important that none have an interest in the particular outcome of the Conference. Dr. Leinen indicated to us that this was also a criterion that she had and was enforcing, including turning down an offer of funding from an entity that was specifically interested in possible carbon permit applications.

With respect to the Conference itself and the State of Victoria, there was an agreement that a number of their leading scientists would be invited to the Conference. The list of those to be invited was prepared by Dr. Graeme Pearman, an internationally leading climate change scientist fro, Australia. The scientists that he recommended to the SOC are all recognized experts in their field and come primarily from academic institutions in Australia, so meeting the SOC requirement.

Thus, we believe that the way in which the Conference has been set up is free of conflicts and biases relating to fossil fuel interests and the interests of particular sponsors. The SOC and CRF both have the view (and have expressed it in various ways) that geoengineering cannot be a substitute for very substantial mitigation (nor for adaptation) and that such interventions do not solve all aspects of the climate change problem (e.g., ocean acidification) and will not return the Earth to preindustrial conditions.

While it might be wished that more had been done in screening of funding, much was done, and the nexus of those interested in providing funds for moving forward with the meeting now (in that research is moving forward) and those without some potential fossil fuel interest is not necessarily large enough and accessible enough in a timely manner to avoid all possible perception problems (e.g., might not the US Government be viewed as suspect, or for that matter any government?). The scientific community has come round to thinking seriously about geoengineering only because the nations of the world have been so slow to limit greenhouse gas emissions and because the pace of climate change and associated impacts have been advancing at what appears to be faster than projected.

Many have yet to realize the limits of emissions reductions to limit climate change, especially if done as slowly and late as is being contemplated. Climate intervention is becoming recognized as possibly a way to counter-balance changes that could cause irreversible losses, initially in high latitudes and within several decades elsewhere. In my view, the key concern for the public should be the apparent failure of the international decision-making process to formally commit to the need for significant near-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

The emerging impacts of climate change and the prospects that lie ahead are of enormous concern. Indeed, optics matter so that no one misinterprets the intentions of the scientific community’s focus on geoengineering–that concern is a direct product of understanding the serious trajectory of change to which society and the environment are currently committed. Ensuring that the optics surrounding geoengineering does not detract from the climate challenge before us is critically important. The Conference will discuss issues such as transparency and conflict of interest in an effort to reinforce professional norms and establish new ones where they might not exist. Our intent is to reduce the need for focusing on bad actors, or the appearance of, bad actors, so that societal effort and discourse can stay focused on the enormous challenge that individual nations and the international community are facing.

I also asked Dr. Leinen for her response:

I would reiterate his comments and elaborate.  While the State of Victoria produces substantial coal, many countries produce substantial fossil fuel for consumption and export, including some with very strong emissions reduction records. I do not believe that a key criterion for accepting government funds for climate or climate intervention research or research-related activities should be whether the nation produces fossil fuel.  If this were the case all US government funding for climate research would be considered tainted.  More appropriate considerations are whether the government has imposed constraints on the activity that would constrain freedom of inquiry.  State of Victoria has imposed no constraints at all on the organizing committee (nor did they have any input to its selection), the agenda, or the invitees.

In addition, the State of Victoria has a strong policy on climate change and both the Premier and the Minister of Environment are committed to an aggressive program of emissions reductions.  As Dr. MacCracken indicated, Victoria is experiencing changes in climate that are substantial even with current levels of CO2.

Victoria is interested in whether climate intervention techniques work and what their impacts might be.  In order to answer those questions researchers will eventually have to do field experiments.  Victoria has expressed to us their strong interest for determining whether climate intervention research can take place responsibly and safely.  To determine whether that is possible, they provided funding in support of the conference.  Our agreement stipulates their support will only be used for the development and execution of the conference.  There are no funds for any other purpose.

Neither the Victorian government nor any of the scientists that they suggested be invited have been involved in the organization of the conference, the conference agenda or the selection of attendees.
The State Victoria will continue to work with the Climate Response Fund after the conference to urge other interested nations and organizations to consider the recommendations of the conference in their own deliberations about climate intervention/geoengineering research.

These are important points, but I think the conference could have and should have avoided any such entire issues entirely.  More in Part 2.

At a quiet lakeside retreat house in Potsdam, Germany, 35 people met this month to discuss the future of nuclear power.

Guest blogger and nuclear economics expert Craig Severance was one of the attendees.   He discusses his presentation in this repost.

Severance is co-author of “The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power” (Praeger 1976) and a former Assistant to the Chairman and to Commerce Counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.  Last year, Severance did an Exclusive analysis for CP on the staggering cost of new nuclear power.

Among us were representatives from governments, academia, think tanks, the nuclear power and utility industries, and independent writers and researchers.  We came to talk, and not necessarily to agree.  Nevertheless, the discussions were brisk and a wealth of valuable information was shared.  The Brookings Institution and the Global Public Policy Institute with support from the European Commission sponsored the conference, entitled “Towards a Nuclear Power Renaissance?  Challenges for Global Energy Governance“. (The insights I share below are my own perspective.  The conference followed rules where each of us is free to publish our own talk and perspectives but cannot report on what others said, so as to promote the free exchange of ideas.)

Potsdam Historically Significant. Potsdam seemed particularly appropriate for such an important conference.  Though it is a relatively small community 24 km southwest of Berlin, it has served an important role in history.  It was the home of the Prussian kings until 1918, a place where decisions could be made in an idyllic setting.   These same qualities attracted the Allies after WWII to meet in Potsdam to determine the future of Germany and postwar Europe.  Today, it has become an important scientific and research center.

Nuclear Power Decisions Will Determine Much. Though nuclear power may seem a limited issue — related only to energy, and only one of several energy sources at that – the decision whether to pursue nuclear power may prove to be the most important decision now before world leaders.    Consider the following:

1. Capital Needs. Expanding nuclear power requires enormous amounts of capital,  For instance, some members of the U.S. Congress have said the U.S. should build 100 more new nuclear power plants.  Yet, building 100 new nuclear power plants would require a capital investment of at least one trillion dollars, and this would still meet only only a fraction of U.S. energy requirements.  In the throes of a world financial crisis, will economies have the resources to devote such enormous resources to just one industry?  Where will the funds come from?  Will other energy priorities such as energy efficiency, the Smart Grid, and expansion of renewables be eclipsed by nuclear power’s needs?  Even more broadly, is it ethical or wise to devote so much of an economy’s total resources to just electricity production?  For instance, do we really want the elderly who now struggle to pay $100/month electric bills to now have to find a way to pay $200/month?  Or, would it be better to limit the share of resources devoted to electricity by helping electric customers cut their usage?  Also, on the societal level, capital is limited.  In many developed countries key needs such as roads and bridges, public water and sewer systems, basic scientific research and development, and schools are all falling into decay because of a lack of capital investment.  In developing countries, these key infrastructures are not yet even in place.
2. Climate Change. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute has said for many years that the pursuit of nuclear power will make climate change worse – because adopting it as a climate protection strategy simply won’t work.  It will be too expensive and too slow to get the job done.  This would not be such a disaster (many things don’t work) if nuclear power didn’t take all the money away from doing the things that actually do work.  Also, as Dr. Benjamin Sovacool of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy published here in 2008, nuclear power “is in no way carbon free or emissions free” even though it is better than coal, oil, or natural gas.  Because of carbon emissions needed for uranium mining and milling, uranium enrichment etc., Dr. Sovacool concluded after reviewng 103 studies on the topic, that nuclear power produces significantly more emissions than renewable energy technologies.  Putting most of your money into a technology that is more costly, slower, and less effective is a strategy for failure — and climate change is an issue where the world cannot afford to fail.
3. Employment. Finding a solution to crippling unemployment is now an urgent matter for many countries.  We cannot ”stimulate” forever – it is crucial that limited capital resources are invested most effectively.  Investments in efficiency and renewables will create more jobs than investing in new nuclear power plants.  The jobs created in new nuclear power are so highly technical there may not even be a trained nuclear work force available to fill those jobs.  As reported by the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009, the nuclear industry is already facing critical shortages of the nuclear engineers needed to keep today’s existing fleets of nuclear power plants operating safely, let alone having the added staff needed to expand.  It is not nuclear engineers who are out of work — there aren’t even enough ot them — but the construction workers we all know in our own families and communities.  Jobs are needed in every community, not just a few concentrated locations where a massive new power plant may be built.  Efficiency and distributed power sources spread more new jobs, to those who need them, in more places.
4. Economic Dependence . America, most of Europe except Russia, and in fact most countries of the world other than oil exporting nations are all suffering from a major drain on their economies due to the need to pay for imported energy.  Nuclear power won’t help most countries become energy independent,  because only a handful of nations in the world possess significant uranium resources.  Nuclear power is actually just another form of imported energy.  Is it wise for a country to invest tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in new power plants that depend on fuel imports from often unstable countries, and countries within the former Soviet sphere of influence?  Efficiency and renewables (and for some nations natural gas) utilize a country’s own resources.  Keeping dollars from leaving a country can create just as much economic activity as bringing new dollars in.
5. Military Security. America and the EU nations have invested major military resources to protect access to imported oil.  Nuclear power does little or nothing to reduce oil dependence to lessen the need for the military resources devoted to oil.  Far worse, however, is that nuclear power creates stark new military security threats of its own that may require investment of major military resources to keep terrorists and weapons-intent countries from building nuclear weapons.  Nuclear power grew out of the nuclear weapons program, and the nuclear fuel cycle still produces the elements — uranium and plutonium — which can be used to make nuclear weapons or radioactive “dirty bombs”.  The nuclear industry argues that any nation or terrorist does not need a nuclear power plant to make a bomb,  they just need uranium enrichment.  This is true.  However, the only “legitimate” reason to enrich uranium is to use it in a nuclear power plant. The continued promotion and sale worldwide of “civilian” nuclear reactors thus gives nations the excuse to operate uranium enrichment programs, as we have seen in Iran.  In addition to this looming threat of new nuclear states, an even more frightening prospect is that weapons grade material will fall into the hands of terrorists. Terrorists are not deterred by Mutually Assured Destruction as are nuclear states.   Some nations are separating out the plutonium from spent nuclear fuel and mixing it into new fuel, and also stockpiling huge quantities of plutonium.  The unused fuel containing plutonium is shipped to nuclear plants, making it vulnerable to attack in transport.  The large plutonium stockpiles may also be attacked with the purpose of either seizing the material for bomb making or contamination of populations with radiation.   Western nuclear plants cannot explode with an atomic Hiroshima-style blast.  However, the continued sale and use of nuclear power plants may allow those intent on creating such horrendous destruction to gain access to exactly the  materials they need..

Nuclear Power Makes No Business Sense. The above problems are very serious in nature.  To address them however may require some simple common sense.  What is the purpose of nuclear power: simply to boil water to make kWh’s.  It is not the only way to make kWh’’s.  Thus, if nuclear power makes no business sense, and there are alternatives to nuclear power, the problems noted above can be avoided except for existing plants.  We won’t need to make things worse by builiding new nuclear power plants.

Free market economies eventually pick winners and losers. There are clear indications the financial markets have already picked new nuclear power as a loser.  Those who watch the financial news on nuclear power have seen major institutions state again and again that new nuclear power makes no economic sense and is too risky to garner private investment or the support of private lenders.   Major cautionary reports have been issued by Moody’s, Citi, and Simmons & Co, among others.

Remember: Promoter’s Business Plans Always Look Good. Some may wonder why they can hear nuclear promoters’ numbers that show new nuclear power is economical, yet the financial industry remains so skeptical.  The reason is simple:  all promoters in any industry know they must develop business plan proposals that look good.  That is the job of the promoter.

Due Diligence Asks the Right Questions. It is the job of the lender or investor to be skeptical of any promoter, and to put a proposal to the test by a process known typically as the “Due Diligence” process.

Core questions asked in the Due Diligence Process include:

1. Does the proposal actually meet customer needs?
2. Can the company afford the project?
3. Are Cost Projections Reliable?
4. Assessment of the Competition
5. Are Revenue Projections Reliable?

Due Diligence for New Nuclear Power. This was my contribution to the Potsdam Conference — a paper showing a sample analysis of new nuclear power as a “business proposal”  and applying the five “Due Diligence” tests above.  The presentation is posted here.

The conclusion is that new nuclear power does not meet any of the five tests, so it would fail as a business proposal.  The financial institutions mentioned above seem to have come to the same conclusion.   New nuclear power likely cannot succeed as a business proposal and thus would require massive government support.

This begs the question however — should not Due Diligence also be applied to the proper use of taxpayer monies?  If so much is at stake for the U.S. and the world, should the U.S. really be leading the way in throwing taxpayer monies at an industry without asking the right questions?

Related Posts:

• Intro to nuclear power
• Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost — $10,800 per kilowatt! — killed Ontario nuclear bid
• Turkey’s only bidder for first nuclear plant offers a price of 21 cents per kilowatt-hour
• Areva has acknowledged that the cost of a new reactor today would be as much as 6 billion euros, or $8 billion, double the price offered to the Finns.