Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘climate change’

Birds of a Feather Feel the Heat from the Climate

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on March 19, 2010 |

Humans are not the only ones feeling the change of the climate, according to a new study released by U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called The State of the Birds: 2010 Report on Climate Change. Collaborating with experts from the nation’s leading conservation organizations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that climate change has and will continue to have a devastating effect on bird species in all habitats.

“For well over a century, migratory birds have faced stresses such as commercial hunting, loss of forests,  the use of DDT and other pesticides, a loss of wetlands and other key habitat, the introduction of invasive species, and other impacts of human development,” Salazar said. “Now they are facing a new threat–climate change–that could dramatically alter their habitat and food supply and push many species towards extinction.”

The State of the Birds reports on oceanic, coastal, wetlands, islands, aridlands, grasslands and forest birds. These findings include observations and predictions, their vulnerability and potential impacts. (more…)

Read Full Post »

DOE Throws $154 Million Down A Texas Hole

Posted in Coal, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on March 11, 2010 |

The United States Department of Energy has sunk $154 million into a carbon capture and sequestration project in Texas proposed by NRG Energy near Houston. The “demonstration” project will be built on their existing Parish Generating Station in Thompsons, TX (one of the biggest and dirtiest coal plants in Texas and the United States). The project will only be capturing 60 megawatts worth of CO2 from the plant – or 400,000 metric tons of CO2 annually. In comparison the Parish plant currently generates 2,697 megawatts of power and releases over 21 million tons of CO2 every year. Also keep in mind that the CO2 from this “capture” process will be used in what’s called “Enhanced Oil Recovery” meaning that the CO2 being sequestered will be partially offset by the CO2 released when the resulting oil is burned. And even industry analysts have said that between 35-50% of the CO2 solution used in EOR comes back up during the oil recovery process, with this carbon being released back into the atmosphere. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Drop by Drop: 7 Ways Texas Cities Can Conserve Water

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 11, 2010 |

The National Wildlife Federation and the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club have created a splash with their latest report: Drop by Drop: 7 Ways Texas Cities Can Conserve Water.

Austin should be proud. Out of 19 cities studied in this report, our capital city was highly ranked on outdoor water ordinances and has an aggressive toilet replacement program. San Antonio has also set the bar high for effective and diverse water efficiency programs across the country. The cities surveyed were measured on: water pricing structure, water saving goals, toilet replacement, conservation funding, and outdoor watering. Though many cities and towns across the nation have made great strides to reduce water use, the report’s conclusion is that most cities are not doing as much as they could to efficiently use existing water supplies. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Help Stop Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 9, 2010 |

Please join us in supporting ILoveMountains.org in their ongoing campaign to bring a halt to Mountaintop Removal (MTR) Coal Mining. There is a bill in front of the House of Representatives that would do a great deal to help stop this incredibly destructive operation.

As you probably know, MTR is one of the most ecologically destructive practices on the planet (and that’s saying a lot). It completely destroys huge sections of the Appalachian forests and mountains which are the second-most biological diverse region on the surface of planet Earth (second only to the tropical rain forests). (more…)

Read Full Post »

On global warming, the science is solid

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 9, 2010 |

Last weekend professors and scientists from four major Texas universities joined forces to write an editorial in the Houston Chronicle defending the science of global warming from skeptics and deniers.  Check it out!

On global warming, the science is solid

In recent months, e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom and errors in one of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports have caused a flurry of questions about the validity of climate change science.

These issues have led several states, including Texas, to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide (also known as greenhouse gases) are a threat to human health.

However, Texas’ challenge to the EPA’s endangerment finding on carbon dioxide contains very little science. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott admitted that the state did not consult any climate scientists, including the many here in the state, before putting together the challenge to the EPA. Instead, the footnotes in the document reveal that the state relied mainly on British newspaper articles to make its case.

Contrary to what one might read in newspapers, the science of climate change is strong. Our own work and the immense body of independent research conducted around the world leaves no doubt regarding the following key points: (more…)

Read Full Post »

Industry Experts Confirm Carbon Capture and Sequestration A Pipe Dream

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 8, 2010 |

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is the fossil fuel industry’s much-touted cure-all for our global warming woes. This theoretical solution to global warming is to pump all our industrial releases of CO2 underground, cross our fingers, and hope really, really hard that it will stay there – literally sweeping the problem under the proverbial rug.

It’s a nice dream, but how realistic is it? A new report has examined the feasibility of CCS, and found it “overwhelming in both physical needs and costs” and the entire strategy for geological sequestration “profoundly non-feasible.” Titled Sequestering Carbon Dioxide in a Closed Underground Volume, the report was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering and written by M.J. Economides of the Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Houston and C.A. Ehlig-Economides of the Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: It has been pointed out to us that many of these claims made by Dr. Economides may be overinflated or just plain spurious- a retort posted by NRDC here.  Because we don’t believe in just throwing blog posts down the memory hole, we want to give this big caveat, and watch for a further discussion on CCS feasibility)

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Climate Change: What Do You Believe?

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on March 4, 2010 |

Or, rather, how do you believe?

Though I’ve always thought this was fairly obvious, a recent story from Christopher Joyce at NPR has addressed how a person’s stance on global warming and climate change (or any issue really) tends to rely far more on one’s “World View” rather than on science or facts. This is based on research done by the The Cultural Cognition Project – a group of scholars who study how cultural values shape public perceptions and policy beliefs.

Regardless of the information provided, a person is more likely to credit whatever information best supports their mindset, and simply reject that which doesn’t.

It doesn’t matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information, says Don Braman, a faculty member at George Washington University and part of the Cultural Cognition Project.

It seems the pre established perspective an individual has when confronting facts and information has a far greater effect on how the person will react than the information itself. Having had many fruitless “conversations” with anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers I don’t find this very shocking at all. And that’s not to say that AGW deniers are the only ones who do it – everyone does it to at least some extent. The question people should always ask themselves is “Am I at least attempting to be objective in my understanding and comprehension of this information?”

Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to information is that the implications of it threaten their values, says Dan Kahan, a law professor at Yale University and a member of The Cultural Cognition Project.

This is why it is not shocking to me at all that anti-evolutionists are not also frequently AGW deniers, but that they are now trying to further their anti-science crusades by linking the two, and allowing anti-evolution messaging to piggy back off of anti-global warming messaging.

There is a lesson here for all of us however, while this further illuminates the true reasons behind AGW denialism, those who are fighting the propaganda and misinformation must relentlessly ensure that our information is factual, correct, and not tarnished by our own personal feelings or motives. This is probably impossible to do completely, but mindfulness alone should help a great deal.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Hey Houston: The Challenges of Communicating Climate Change Event This Thursday

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , on March 2, 2010 |

This Thursday, March 4 the Center for the Study of Environment and Society, in partnership with the Baker Institute Science and Technology Policy Program and the U.K. Science and Innovation Team, British Consulate-Houston cordially invite you to their upcoming discussion:

The Challenges of Communicating Climate Change

with

Tim Reeder, Regional Climate Change Programme Manager, U.K. Environment Agency

Mark Maslin, Director of the Environment Institute, University College of London

David Vaughan, Science Leader, British Antarctic Survey

Moderated by

André W. Droxler, Director of the Center of the Study of Environment and Society, Rice University

Thursday, March 4, 2010

4:00 pm

Reception to Follow

Kelly International Conference Facility, Baker Institute. Rice University

To attend, please RSVP online, by fax to

713-348-5993 or by email to bipprsvp@rice.edu by *Monday, March 1*.

Please feel free to forward this email to any parties interested.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

SNOWPOCALYPSE Strikes Austin, Texas

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 23, 2010 |

Holy *%$&! its snowing in Austin, Texas! What do I do? Can I still drive? Do I have to go to work? Should I put on big boots and go buy as much bottled water and creamed corn as I can fit into a stolen borrowed shopping cart? Or just jump on the global warming denier train ASAP?

Terrified victims of SNOWMAGGEDON tremble in fear outside the Public Citizen office

That’s right folks, those fluffy flaky beauties may be lovely to our amazed southern eyes, but to climate deniers they are cold hard proof that global warming is fake. Because its cold outside, so how can the globe possibly be warming?!?! Hah! “Fact” your way out of that truthiness!

***Sigh*** Some folks have a lot of fun busting up climate deniers, but I just don’t have the stomach for it. Far from laughing in glee at those fools who can’t tell the difference between “weather” and “climate”, it just makes me sad. So I’ll let the president do my dirty work for me.  Check out this video of Obama addressing the crowd at a town hall meeting in Nevada.  He actually does  a really good job of explaining the science of “global boiling”, as Brad Johnson at the Wonk Room notes:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPwHnU5ObPY]

…we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody’s like-a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change, they say, “See, look at that. There’s all this snow on the ground, you know, this doesn’t mean anything.” I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn’t mean that every place is getting warmer. It means the planet as a whole is getting warmer. But what it may mean is, for example, Vancouver which supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics, suddenly is at 55 degrees and Dallas suddenly is getting seven inches of snow. The idea is that as the planet as a whole gets warmer, you start seeing changing weather patterns and that creates more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather. So any single place might end up being warmer. Another place might end up being a little bit cooler. There might end up being more precipitation in the air…

So there you have it, folks. Global warming doesn’t mean it is simply getting hotter. It doesn’t mean there will never be snow again. It means that global temperatures overall are going up, and that’s going to make weather all over the place get a little wonky.  Like stronger hurricanes along the Gulf Coast, extreme drought in south Texas, or even snow right here in Austin.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Gov. Perry at it again with EPA lawsuit

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 19, 2010 |

If I had a nickel every time we put out a statement saying something along the lines of “Governor Perry is blowing hot air about climate change”…I could probably only really buy a candy bar. Or a coke — a Mexican coke in a bottle, preferably, to be drunk as I eat a fried avocado taco on a Friday afternoon (mmm, thanks Perry).

But this week our dear Gov was at it again. Tuesday morning he joined Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples to announce a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s(EPA) endangerment finding for carbon dioxide. We had plenty to say about it, which has already been posted this week, but I think that I like the way Forrest Wilder over at the Texas Observer put it best:

Perry is up to his neck in pseudo-scientific gobbledygook and he’s bringing Attorney General Abbott and Ag Commissioner Todd Staples along with him. The (“frivolous“) lawsuit today is neither a legal nor scientific document. It is a political one: poorly-reasoned, poorly-sourced and containing enough tin-foil hat conspiracies to block a Mexican border blaster.

Check out his blog post for the nitty gritty on the legal brief (“filled with footnotes, giving the appearance that it’s been carefully researched. But on closer inspection many of the references are to rightwing blogs, “studies” by armchair climate analysts, and obscure anti-climate groups like the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.”)

Luckily we heard about Perry’s press announcement with just enough time to sweep in and have the last word. Officing 3 blocks from the capitol does have its perks. Along with Sierra Club, we were able to stake out a good spot outside the Governor’s Press Room and hold an impromptu reaction press conference by the West Trashcan. With members of the press gathered around, Smitty (our director, of course!) and Eva Hernandez from Sierra Club gave statements crying foul on the Governor’s tomfoolery, and even issued a symbolic “citizen’s citation” to Perry for endangering the health of Texans and the climate. Perry didn’t come out to accept it himself, but did send a policy aide in his honor. Good thing too; we were worried we’d have to slip it under his locked and barred door (not exactly the climactic press moment we were looking for). Check out the video though, editing courtesy of our newest media intern Patrick! Don’t worry, you’ll get to meet him soon enough.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY50xHfOFTE]

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Texas State Climatologist Disagrees with Gov Perry, AG Abbott, and Ag Comm Staples on climate science

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 18, 2010 |

You may have seen the political bloviating earlier this week when Governor Perry announced he would sue the EPA over their endangerment finding on CO2.   Or that Attorney General Greg Abbott signed on, as did Agricultural Commissioner Todd Staples, who all ended up calling the science behind climate change flawed, saying:

The state’s legal action indicates EPA’s Endangerment Finding is legally unsupported because the agency outsourced its scientific assessment to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been discredited by evidence of key scientists’ lack of objectivity, coordinated efforts to hide flaws in their research, attempts to keep contravening evidence out of IPCC reports and violation of freedom of information laws.

You may have also seen our response.  If you’re a regular reader here, I hope so!

Perry, Abbott, and Staples claim that the science is flawed on climate change, citing recent controversy surrounding the IPCC (a-hem, that’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, gentlemen. Maybe the legal brief should be thrown out due to citation of a ficticious panel? We’ll call it INTERNATL-PANELGATE! We’ve really got ’em now!).  Too bad the controversy hasn’t affected the main thrust of the underlying science, only some of the claims. Too bad the conclusions of the IPCC have also been independently adopted and verified by the US National Academy of Sciences and the collected opinions of 13 US Gov’t agencies (like those liberals at the CIA and the USDA), collectively put together in the US Global Change Research Program. Despite its problems, the main conclusions of the IPCC’s report, that temperatures were increasing and climate was changing due to greenhouse gas emissions, remains intact.

Too bad Perry, Abbott, and Staples (or maybe more accurately Larry, Moe, and Shemp?) didn’t seek the advice of…oh, actual scientists, like maybe the Texas state climatologist?  Didn’t know we had a climatologist?  (Maybe Governor Perry didn’t either?) Well, we do, and before you dismiss him as some granola-chewing-Austin-based-hippie-liberal, he’s actually anything but.

Meet Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, of the Texas A&M Department of Atmospheric Sciences, appointed to the position of State Climatologist by noted liberal and hater of greenhouse gases George W. Bush. (hope you caught the irony there).

In a sweeping interview with Brad Johnson’s Wonk Room blog, he fired back against Perry’s allegations that the endangerment finding is flawed:  “Anthropogenic increases of greenhouse gas concentrations clearly present a danger to the public welfare, and I agree with the EPA’s findings in that sense.”

To be fair, Dr. N-G also specifically added a caveat to his comments, “Just to be clear, I do not “utterly dismiss” the Texas petition. I have contributed to pointing out errors in the IPCC reports in my own blog, and it is appropriate for the State of Texas to inquire how much of the IPCC findings will ultimately be called into question. Nor would my considered scientific opinion constitute adequate independent grounds for an EPA finding.”

Wow.  A reasonable climatologist, but one who supports the broad scientific consensus.  What scientific consensus is that, you ask?  Well, as a result of this interview, Dr. Andy Dessler (who we have long been a fan of here at TexasVox) and the entire A&M Dept of Atmo Sciences released the following statement:

Dr. Andrew Dessler, a climatologist at Texas A&M University and author of The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change, tells the Wonk Room in an email interview that the entire Department of Atmospheric Sciences agrees with the IPCC:

“I, along with all of the other faculty in the department, agree with the main conclusions of the IPCC.”In 2007, the Texas A&M Department of Atmospheric Sciences issued a statement that global warming from emissions of greenhouse gases risks “serious adverse impacts on our environment and society” — the key basis for the EPA’s endangerment finding:

1. It is virtually certain that the climate is warming, and that it has warmed by about 0.7 deg. C over the last 100 years.
2. It is very likely that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming.
3. If we do nothing to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, future warming will likely be at least two degrees Celsius over the next century.
4. Such a climate change brings with it a risk of serious adverse impacts on our environment and society.When asked if the latest attacks on the IPCC affect their stance, Dr. Dessler responded that “the Department stands by its statement. You can quote me on that.”

You can read the entire interview here.  But, when it comes to this one right here, it’s Science 1 – Perry, Abbott and Staples 0.

Or maybe no one is keeping score, and we just chalk this up as more election year posturing?

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Public Citizen and Sierra Club Issue Citation to Governor Perry for “Endangering” Texans

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 16, 2010 |

Perry Flaunts State, Federal Law in EPA Lawsuit

Statement from Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office and Ken Kramer, director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club

This morning Governor Perry attempted to show Texas voters that he is bigger than both Texas and federal law by enacting a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s(EPA) endangerment finding for carbon dioxide, but instead just further highlighted his failure to protect Texans’ health and the safety and long term stability of our economy and climate.

Instead of suing the EPA, Perry should be taking proactive steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build up our clean energy economy.  Our governor likes to brag about all he’s done to promote wind and energy efficiency and the emissions Texas has avoided as a result, but at the same time he is hammering through a second Texas coal rush that will negate all that hard work and add 77 million tons of CO2 to Texas’ already overheated air.

Perry’s blustering behavior has actually caused Public Citizen to file a lawsuit against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for its failure to regulate global warming gasses. Texas law clearly requires that “air contaminants” be regulated, and defines contaminants as follows:

“‘Air contaminant’ means particulate matter, radioactive material, dust, fumes, gas, mist, smoke, vapor, or odor, including any combination of those items, produced by processes other than natural.” Tex. Health & Safety Code § 382.003(2).

Perry has proudly demonstrated willful ignorance of this portion of Texas law time and time again, and has ordered state agencies such as the TCEQ to ignore it as well. For this reason and his actions today we are issuing our Governor a Citizens’ Citation to cease and desist endangering the health of breathers, the economy and the climate in Texas by continuing to permit coal plants and other large sources of CO2.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

What’s Missing from Austin’s Energy Generation Plan Discussion

Posted in Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, Renewables, solar, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on February 15, 2010 |

The Austin American Statesman’s article this morning about Austin’s 2020 energy plan leaves a few things out that are crucial to understanding the costs and benefits of adding more energy efficiency and renewable power to Austin’s generation portfolio. Judging from the rather depressing comments section, many readers took away the unfortunate misconception that poor Austinites will have to sacrifice for green energy goals. I’d like to clear that up today.

Few things irk me more than when people fail to see the connection between improving social welfare and protecting the environment.

The notion that green power has to come at the expense of low-income households needs to be eradicated. Social welfare and protecting the environment are not conflicting or exclusive goals. By cleaning up the way we produce electric power and making homes more energy efficient, we can do much to improve the quality of life in Austin. And by making homes that can be heated and cooled with less energy, we can save low-income families money on one of their biggest monthly expenditures AND keep Austinites healthy and safe during bitter cold and dangerous summer heat.

There are a few key points that need to be part of the public discussion about the energy plan which have largely been absent from the public radar. I’d ask any Austinite doing their homework for the Mayor’s Town Hall on Monday to take these issues into consideration:

The Plan is Flexible

As part of the Generation Resource Planning Task Force, I voted with all other members of the Task Force to include a provision that Austin review the plan every two years in case any one resource option became too costly (recommendation 3a-b). That way, AE would have the ability to adapt its plan and go with something cheaper. This is a ratepayer protection and cost control mechanism that will protect all customer classes and should be included in the public discussion about the plan. As my friend Cyrus Reed at the Sierra Club puts it astutely: the plan is a roadmap, not a straightjacket.

That’s the beauty of a diverse energy portfolio. Austin would not have this ability if it were locked into building a new nuclear plant or coal plant (like CPS Energy is).

Energy Efficiency is part of the plan

Public discussion of this plan tends to focus on supply-side renewable resources, but the biggest component of the energy plan is energy efficiency. If it met its goals, Austin would achieve 800-1000 MW of energy savings by 2020. The next highest new resource addition would be wind (~562 additional MW when taking into account 203 MW worth of expiring wind contracts). 800 MW of efficiency represents 55% of all the resource additions that encompass the Resource & Climate Protection Plan (note that 100 MW of gas, 100 MW of biomass, and 30 MW of solar that are due to come online over the next three years are not part of the plan).

Efficiency achieves carbon reduction objectives and affordability objectives. Thus, the biggest component of the energy plan will help keep bills low. It’s also worth pointing out that if we do not achieve the efficiency goals, we will need new supply-side generation in order to keep the lights on–800 MW worth. Without efficiency, bills are sure to go up much higher because all supply-side options are more expensive than efficiency.

Comparisons give perspective

Let’s talk about bill impacts on the poor. Take a drive down I-35. San Antonio’s utility, CPS Energy predicts they will need to increase rates 40% by 2020 and that does not even include the future cost increase for natural gas or costs for investing in the proposed expansion of the South Texas Nuclear Plant, which has risen from ~$6 billion in 2007 to $18 billion today before license application are adjudicated or construction begins.

No one is advocating for environmental protection at the expense of the poor. That is flat-out a false choice. This plan won’t do that because of the protections that will be put in place, the overwhelming focus on energy efficiency and AE taking a more proactive and cooperative approach to services for those struggling to pay their utility bills. In order to make electricity more affordable for people, it is up to us as a community to adopt a pragmatic approach to realizing and achieving the complimentary goals of social welfare and environmental protection. After all, you can’t have one without the other.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Texas Ag Commissioner Todd Staples says Agriculture Hurt by Federal Climate Legislation – We beg to differ

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on February 9, 2010 |

Back in the movie/musical “Oklahoma”, we got a musical lesson that the farmer and the cowman should be friends.  They seem to have bridged that divide rather well in the intervening decades, but today the question remains whether the farmers and ranchers and the climate should be friends.

Agricultural Commissioner Todd Staples certainly doesn’t think so.  On his Twitter account last week, he asked “How could anybody involved in agriculture think the proposed Cap &Trade legislation is good for Texas?”

Well, we’ll tell you.  It’s a combination of solving the climate crisis which will disproportionately hurt agriculture in Texas, not using faulty studies cooked up for partisan purposes (which Staples does) and about the jobs and savings to everyday Texas families, which helps everyone  whether you’re a farmer or not.

First, no other industry is so exposed as agriculture to the impacts of climate change. Agriculture is almost completely dependent on relatively stable patterns of rainfall and temperature to get a good yield.  Climate change threatens not only how much rainfall we get, but also how we get it.  Predictions are that some areas may actually see more rain, but in fits and starts with large storms that flood and then wash away topsoil rather than absorb moisture.

Texas is still in the midst of one of the worst droughts in its history. Australian scientists have linked 37% of this drought to anthropogenic climate change. Recent drought has brought record breaking agricultural losses to Texas both this last year in 2009 and in 2006,  when billions of dollars in crops were lost and cattle had to be culled in mass numbers because feed and water was too expensive and they were dying in the field from the heat.  Some are even asking if this prolonged drought is actually just the beginning of “the new normal,” a frightening prospect for anyone with a farm or ranch in West, Central, or South Texas where drought has been the most extreme.

The USDA’s study of impacts of climate change on agriculture, as part of the consensus opinion of 13 federal agencies, is that Texas stands to lose up to 35% of its agricultural yield from just 2 degrees of warming.  And that’s not all — check out this press release from the USDA:

The report finds that climate change is already affecting U.S. water resources, agriculture, land resources, and biodiversity, and will continue to do so. Specific findings include: (more…)

Read Full Post »

Obama announces new government goal for reducing greenhouse gases: 28% by 2020

Posted in Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, Good Government, tagged , , , , , , , , on January 29, 2010 |

Also cross-posted at our Energy Blog:

President Obama announced this morning he was putting the government on a low carbon diet. Through a series of initiatives, he hopes to decrease energy consumption through efficiency and switching to alternative energy that is less carbon intensive.

As the single largest energy consumer in the U.S. economy, the Federal Government spent more than $24.5 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 alone. Achieving the Federal GHG pollution reduction target will reduce Federal energy use by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205 million barrels of oil, and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year. This is also equivalent to a cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said President Obama. “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

Fun fact 1: The US government uses approximately as much energy as the entire country of Austria.

Fun Fact 2: Similar initiatives made by states have netted huge results. The state government of Utah, led by governor Jon Huntsman (who Obama named ambassador to China, you may remember), invested $1.5 million in energy efficiency for government agencies expecting a 10 year payback. They made it back in 3– and now they save over half a million dollars in energy costs a year. Efficiency is an economy of scale– and I’m willing to be the entire government of Utah would not even fill in one of the large federal agency buildings around DC.

Fun Fact 3: Texas has its own “No Regrets” greenhouse gas reduction strategy in accordance with the passage of SB 184, which Public Citizen supported: don’t forget that Sunday is the last day to submit your energy efficiency ideas to the state comptroller’s office. For more info see: www.TexasNoRegrets.org

I think this is a domestic spending freeze everyone can get behind.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »