Scroll down for all 3 cartoons:

Take Action!
Apple, Amazon and Microsoft all use asthma-inducing, climate destroying coal to power the "cloud" that stores your emails, photos, music and videos. Take action now & tell these companies to clean the cloud.

Joe's cartoon archive and twitter ramblings.

Published last month by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, the report (pdf) shows that Americans are far less polarized about global warming than is commonly believed. Among other things, the report also found strong support for government action to address global warming, including support for a revenue neutral carbon tax, regardless of political party preference.

Researchers found that a strong majority of Americans (72%) believe global warming should be a political priority and they want their elected officials to do something about it. An even stronger majority (92%) think that developing clean energy should be a political priority. The survey also showed a majority of Americans think that protecting the environment actually improves economic growth and creates jobs.

So why do Americans have a skewed vision of the public's opinion on global warming? According to Anthony Leiserowitz of the School of Forestry & Environmental Studies at Yale University, one of the report's principal investigators, a media bias for controversy combined with an extremely vocal minority of "Dismissers" are the driving forces behind the perceived polarization.

Lieserowitz identifies "six Americas" (see chart above), to describe the range of opinion on global warming. Ranging from Alarmed, Concerned and Cautious on one side of the spectrum, to Disengaged, Doubtful and Dismissive on the other side, the report paints a more nuanced picture of public opinion in America than that which is commonly perceived by the public.

"These [Dismissive] are people who are firmly convinced it's not happening, not human-caused and many of them are what we would lovingly call conspiracy theorists," said Leiserowitz on NPR's Science Friday. "They say it's a hoax, it's scientists making up data, it's a UN plot to take over American sovereignty, it's Al Gore and his friends trying to get rich..."

But while this group makes up only 10 percent of the population, they are a mobilized, outspoken minority.

"They are quite vocal, very engaged. Given the opportunity they will talk a lot about this issue," said Leiserowitz. "They're only 10 percent and yet they appear much larger because they tend to dominate much of the public square..."

All of the credit should not be given to the skeptics and their adept communications, however, Leiserowitz rightly points out.

In the mainstream media, "There's a basic imperative, especially in commercial media, that controversy sells," he says. "Which would you rather see? somebody who is methodically and deliberately spelling out the science of climate change or two people yelling at each other?"

Odds are that you haven't heard of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. And even if you've heard of it, I'm willing to bet you don't know what might be in it. That's because, although this massive new trade agreement could have profound implications for our environment, our health, and the rights of workers, it is being negotiated in almost complete secrecy.

The Sierra Club has worked on trade policy for nearly two decades for one simple reason: Trade rules have a huge impact on environmental protections. In 1998, for example, the World Trade Organization ordered the U.S. to weaken Endangered Species Act protections for sea turtles being killed in shrimp-fishing nets. And in an ongoing dispute, a U.S. corporation, Renco Group, is suing the government of Peru for $800 million under the free trade agreement between the U.S. and Peru. Why? Because Peru denied the corporation a third extension on its obligation to clean up pollutants and contaminants from a metallic smelter that Renco invested in. These are just two examples.

So when the United States and eight other Pacific Rim countries meet in Dallas later this month to finalize the TPP, which they're calling a "21st-century trade agreement," we'll be there, too. We want the negotiators to know: We are deeply concerned about both the process and the direction of these talks.

There's nothing wrong with encouraging trade. But let’s do it right. A fair global trading system should improve the quality of life for all parties; it must include meaningful and enforceable environmental and labor standards that make it possible for communities to both provide for themselves and protect their environment. Because corporations are usually at the forefront of crafting trade agreements -- and civil society is not -- the end product primarily serves corporate interests -- often at the expense of the people whose lives they affect.

Exacerbating the problem, the scope of international trade agreements now extends far beyond the bounds of regulating trade. They also affect how products are actually made. For example, none of the trade pacts the U.S. has signed allows a country to give preference to products made with recycled content or to products made by workers who are paid decent wages with benefits.

In fact, virtually every free trade agreement we've negotiated since the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has contained language that lets foreign corporations sue governments directly -- in private and non-transparent tribunals -- for unlimited cash compensation over almost any domestic law (environmental or otherwise) that the corporation argues might hurt its profitability. The sole exception is our free trade agreement with Australia -- because the Australian government refused to allow its laws to be attacked by foreign corporations.

That was smart, because corporations have been quick to take advantage of this ability to attack a country's laws and protections. By the end of 2011, corporations (including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, and Cargill) had brought 450 disputes worth hundreds of millions of dollars against the governments of 89 countries. Many of those cases directly targeted environmental and other public interest laws.

For example, a Canadian mining company, Pacific Rim Mining Corp., through a U.S. subsidiary, is currently using the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) to sue the government of El Salvador for $200 million for attempting to safeguard its people and environment from environmentally devastating mining practices. Just last year, Vattenfall, a Swedish energy company that controls two nuclear power plants in Germany, brought a case against Germany regarding that country's nuclear phaseout.

Unfortunately, unless we change how these agreements are negotiated, the TPP will certainly follow this same, deeply flawed model, which grants unprecedented rights to corporations. A true "21st-century trade agreement" should be looking to rein in corporate power -- not expand it. And it certainly shouldn't be negotiated in total secrecy behind closed doors.

The first step toward ensuring that we don't end up with a flawed Trans-Pacific Partnership is to bring these negotiations into the light of day. As former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." In Dallas, we'll deliver a petition, signed by thousands of Sierra Club members and supporters, that calls on the United States to publicly release all TPP proposals. Please add your name and tell the U.S. Trade Representative: We deserve to know exactly what it is that trade negotiators are proposing in our name.

Photo: Some rights reserved by photohome_uk

[Note: If Americans for Limited Government sounds familiar, they are also the driving force behind such incredibly important political efforts as defunding public broadcasting. And in a piece shedding light on the groups and individuals behind the video, Media Matters digs up a wealth of evidence discrediting the parent organizations and the individuals that run them.]

by Abraham Lustgarten, ProPublica

A new study has raised fresh concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale, concluding that fracking chemicals injected into the ground could migrate toward drinking water supplies far more quickly than experts have previously predicted.

More than 5,000 wells were drilled in the Marcellus between mid-2009 and mid-2010, according to the study, which was published in the journal Ground Water two weeks ago. Operators inject up to 4 million gallons of fluid, under more than 10,000 pounds of pressure, to drill and frack each well.

Scientists have theorized that impermeable layers of rock would keep the fluid, which contains benzene and other dangerous chemicals, safely locked nearly a mile below water supplies. This view of the earth's underground geology is a cornerstone of the industry's argument that fracking poses minimal threats to the environment.

But the study, using computer modeling, concluded that natural faults and fractures in the Marcellus, exacerbated by the effects of fracking itself, could allow chemicals to reach the surface in as little as "just a few years."

"Simply put, [the rock layers] are not impermeable," said the study's author, Tom Myers, an independent hydrogeologist whose clients include the federal government and environmental groups.

"The Marcellus shale is being fracked into a very high permeability," he said. "Fluids could move from most any injection process."

The research for the study was paid for by Catskill Mountainkeeper and the Park Foundation, two upstate New York organizations that have opposed gas drilling and fracking in the Marcellus.

Much of the debate about the environmental risks of gas drilling has centered on the risk that spills could pollute surface water or that structural failures would cause wells to leak.

Though some scientists believed it was possible for fracking to contaminate underground water supplies, those risks have been considered secondary. The study in Ground Water is the first peer-reviewed research evaluating this possibility.

The study did not use sampling or case histories to assess contamination risks. Rather, it used software and computer modeling to predict how fracking fluids would move over time. The simulations sought to account for the natural fractures and faults in the underground rock formations and the effects of fracking.

The models predict that fracking will dramatically speed up the movement of chemicals injected into the ground. Fluids traveled distances within 100 years that would take tens of thousands of years under natural conditions. And when the models factored in the Marcellus' natural faults and fractures, fluids could move 10 times as fast as that.

Where man-made fractures intersect with natural faults, or break out of the Marcellus layer into the stone layer above it, the study found, "contaminants could reach the surface areas in tens of years, or less."

The study also concluded that the force that fracking exerts does not immediately let up when the process ends. It can take nearly a year to ease.

As a result, chemicals left underground are still being pushed away from the drill site long after drilling is finished. It can take five or six years before the natural balance of pressure in the underground system is fully restored, the study found.

Myers' research focused exclusively on the Marcellus, but he said his findings may have broader relevance. Many regions where oil and gas is being drilled have more permeable underground environments than the one he analyzed, he said.

"One would have to say that the possible travel times for a similar thing in Arkansas or Northeast Texas is probably faster than what I've come up with," Myers said.

Ground Water is the journal of the National Ground Water Association, a non-profit group that represents scientists, engineers and businesses in the groundwater industry.

Several scientists called Myers' approach unsophisticated and said that the assumptions he used for his models didn't reflect what they knew about the geology of the Marcellus Shale. If fluids could flow as quickly as Myers asserts, said Terry Engelder, a professor of geosciences at Penn State University who has been a proponent of shale development, fracking wouldn't be necessary to open up the gas deposits.

"This would be a huge fracture porosity," Engelder said. "So I read this and I say, 'Golly, does this guy really understand anything about what these shales look like?' The concern then arises from using a model rather than observations."

Myers likened the shale to a cracked window, saying that samples showing it didn't contain fractures were small in size and were akin to only examining an intact section of glass, while a broader, scaled out view would capture the faults and fractures that could leak.

Both scientists agreed that direct evidence of fluid migration is needed, but little sampling has been done to analyze where fracking fluids go after being injected underground.

Myers says monitoring systems could be installed around gas well sites to measure for changes in water quality, a measure required for some gold mines, for example. Until that happens, Myers said, theoretical modeling has to substitute for hard data.

"We were trying to use the basic concepts of groundwater and hydrology and geology and say can this happen?" he said. "And that had basically never been done."

Image: Chesapeake Energy

More on Fox spinning the wind turbine (and Bullies).

From Treehugger: Wind Farms Cause Global Warming, Fox News Says
From Care2: Bully: The Movie and the Movement

Follow the rest of the Hank D and the Bee series at JoeMohrToons.com. For cartoon updates and other green goings-on, follow Joe on Twitter @GreenCartoons.

This article titled "Solar panel demand down nearly 90% following subsidy cut" was written by Damian Carrington, for guardian.co.uk on Tuesday 1st May 2012 11.19 UTC

Solar panel installations have fallen by almost 90% in the weeks since the government halved cut the subsidy available, according to Department of Energy and Climate Change figures.

The change in financial support for solar power has been highly controversial and has seen the government lose a high-profile legal case in the high court. The new data lends support to the charge of some in the solar industry that the government cut the subsidy too far and too fast, endangering thousands of jobs. Ministers have defended their actions, saying the scheme they inherited from the previous government was poorly set up and was too costly for the energy customers who ultimately foot the bill.

Since 1 April, the amount paid to those installing solar panels fell from 43p/kWh of energy generated, to 21p/kWh. In the three weeks since then, an average of 2.4MW of solar photovoltaic capacity has been added each week – 87% down from the weekly average for the previous year of 18MW.

Greg Barker, the Conservative minister responsible for the solar subsidy scheme, said the changes aimed to end "solar booms" and busts: "The whole point of my reforms is to bring in a much greater degree of certainty and predictability." He has set an ambition to have 22GW of solar capacity installed in the UK by 2020.

Caroline Flint, the shadow energy and climate change secretary, claimed on Tuesday that this target would take 169 years to reach at the current rate. "For months Labour has been warning that the government's cuts to solar power would destroy thousands of jobs, cut off a green hi-tech British industry and stop families controlling soaring energy bills. These shocking figures prove that because of the government's cuts, it will take a staggering 169 years for us to reach our targets for solar power."

"To take only three weeks of data and use it to predict the next eight years is absurd," said Greg Barker, who accused Flint of political opportunism and learning nothing from the "solar bubble". Barker told the Guardian: "As costs come down, the implementation will go up. It is not a straight line. The 22GW ambition looks very credible, but it does depend on bringing costs down through the government and industry working together. The good news is that is happening." He said new McKinsey research showed solar power would be cost-competitive with fossil fuels by 2020.

Paul Barwell, chief executive of the Solar Trade Association, said: "We've seen drops in installation with every policy adjustment, but we expect this one will take a bit more time to pick up." He said the reason take-up would take longer this time is the new requirement that homes must be reasonably energy-efficient before being entitled to solar panel subsidies – a requirement met by about half of homes.

"Many householders are aware that government has slashed subsidies," Barwell added. "The challenge for us is to make householders aware that's partly because industry has slashed costs, and partly because solar is so popular. There is no doubt that financially solar remains a great prospect for UK homeowners so there is no good reason why the UK market should stagnate."

All sides agree that subsidies had to be reduced because the costs of solar panels continue to drop rapidly: the argument was about the speed and scale of the cut.

In his first significant remarks on green policy last week, prime minister David Cameron appeared to address the uncertainty caused in the renewables industry by the changes to the feed-in tariff. "When we have made a commitment to a project, we will always honour it in full," he told energy ministers from around the world on 26 April.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.