Blue Marble

Billionaire Clean Energy Advocate Pledges to Spend Big in Mass.

| Tue Mar. 19, 2013 1:52 PM PDT
ed markeyRep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

A group of young activists is pairing up with a billionaire philanthropist to try to make the Keystone XL pipeline, and climate change, a central issue in the Democratic primary in Massachusetts. 

Tom Steyer, a former hedge fund manager and clean energy evangelist, has spent more than $37 million to pass and defend climate and energy initiatives in California. Now he's forming a super-PAC to spend on the April 30 Democratic primary for the special election to fill Massachusetts' empty Senate seat.

Steyer and young environmentalists are targeting Dem Rep. Steve Lynch for his support of the Keystone XL pipeline. Lynch voted for a House bill last year that called for the Obama administration to approve the controversial pipeline. Lynch's opponent in the primary, Rep. Ed Markey, has the support of a number of environmental groups and opposes the pipeline.

Steyer joined with Craig S. Altemose of the Better Future Project and three other Massachusetts college students to write a open letter to Lynch on Monday demanding he change his position on the pipeline:

Because climate change is such a serious issue, and because it is on the ballot as never before, we are asking you, Congressman Lynch, today to do one of two things by high noon on Friday, March 22. Either act like a real Democrat and oppose Keystone’s dirty energy. Or, get a sworn, binding statement – with securities law enforcement – from TransCanada and the refiners that all of the Keystone-shipped oil will stay here.

If Lynch doesn't change his tune, they wrote, Steyer will then "immediately launch an aggressive public education campaign" against Lynch. In an interview with Mother Jones, Chris Lehane, a spokesman for Steyer, declined to say how much they would spend on such a campaign, but said it would include paid media, get out the vote work, and field campaigns.

Steyer became involved in the Massachusetts race after Altemose and the other young activists reached out. ​Altemose said their effort is "less of an endorsement of Markey and more a repudiation of Lynch's actions." The campaign, he said, is designed to "make sure there's political consequences for disregarding future generations."

"For someone to believe they can represent Massachusetts and be supporting policies that take us backward to the dirty energy past is just mind boggling," Altemose said.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Conservatives Outraged About Mountaintop Removal in Tennessee... By Chinese Company

| Tue Mar. 19, 2013 11:23 AM PDT

What's it take to get conservatives in Tennessee fired up about blowing up mountains? China, apparently.

On Tuesday, the Tennessee Conservative Union, which bills itself as the state's "largest and oldest conservative group," started running anti-mountaintop removal coal mining ads on television throughout the state. Their complaint? The Chinese company Guizhou Guochuang Energy Holding Group announced last year that it is acquiring Triple H Coal Mining, which does mountaintop removal. The Tennessee Conservative Union ad warns that they will become "the first state in our great nation to permit the red Chinese to destroy our mountains and take our coal."

"We're proud that Tennessee is a red state," the ad concludes. "But just how red are we willing to go?"

The ad comes off as anti-China, but it also offers a critique of mountaintop removal coal mining in general, which is the big news here. The ad comes just a day before committees in both the state Senate and House are expected to vote on the Scenic Vistas Protection Act, a bill activists have been trying to get passed in the state for six years. The measure would make it illegal to blow up mountaintops to mine coal. Supporters are taking TCU's support for the bill as a sign that it might gain more traction this year.

"The Tennessee Conservative Union is 100% pro-Coal, but our organization does not support destroying our mountain heritage," TCU Chairman Lloyd Daugherty said in a statement Tuesday. "Mountaintop removal mining kills jobs because it takes fewer workers to blow up a mountain."

JW Randolph, Tennessee director of Appalachian Voices, a group that has been working to pass the anti-mountaintop removal law, welcomed the ad. "We don't care if you're from Bristol or Beijing, blowing up the oldest mountains in America for a few tons of coal is a bad idea," he said. 

Here's TCU's ad:

WTF? Now Manatees Are Dying off Both Florida Coasts

| Tue Mar. 19, 2013 3:06 AM PDT
Two Florida manatees holding flippers:Florida manatees:

A record number of manatees—more than 180, and counting—have died so far this year from a red tide off the southwest Florida coast. These tides are caused by blooms of the alga, Karenia brevis, which produce a suite of neurotoxins (brevetoxins) deadly to fish, sea turtles, birds, and marine mammals. Red tides are harmful to people too, if you breathe enough of the aerosolized toxins or eat enough infected fish or shellfish. Now, from Craig Pittman at the Tampa Bay Times, we learn that a mysterious ailment is killing manatees off Florida's other (east) coast too. There's no red tide bloom underway there and no winter cold snap either:

So far... no sick manatees have been rescued, availing biologists with a live specimen to study for clues. They suspect the manatee deaths may be connected to back-to-back blooms of a [another species of] harmful algae, one that has stained the Indian River Lagoon a chocolate brown. Over the past two years the blooms wiped out some 31,000 acres of sea grass in the 156-mile-long lagoon that stretches along the state's Atlantic coast. Manatees eat sea grass, but with the sea grass gone, they may have turned to less healthful sources of nutrition.

Karenia brevis, as seen through a scanning electron micrograph:
Deadly little plant beasties, Karenia brevis, as seen through a scanning electron micrograph: MyFWC Research at Flickr

The dead manatees on Florida's east coast appear to have gone into shock and drowned after eating algae. Researchers surmise the deaths are related to this abrupt dietary change. Furthermore, Pittman reports, more than 100 brown pelicans have been found dead in that same area since the start of 2013:

"The pelicans were emaciated and full of parasites. So far biologists don't know what killed them or if there could be any connection with the dead manatees."

There's one big difference between the algae blooms on the east and west coasts—and that's what's causing them. The eastern bloom is fueled by nutrient pollution from storm runoff: a Miracle-Gro of fertilizers, sewage, manure, and pet wastes that fuels algae blooms. The cause of the western red tide is more muddled. According to the Mote Marine Laboratory:


In contrast to the many red tide species that are fueled by nutrient pollution associated with urban or agricultural runoff, there is no direct link between nutrient pollution and the frequency or severity of red tides caused by K. brevis. Florida red tides develop 10-40 miles offshore, away from manmade nutrient sources. Red tides occurred in Florida long before human settlement, and severe red tides were observed in the mid-1900s before the state's coastlines were heavily developed. However, once red tides are transported inshore, they are capable of using manmade nutrients for their growth.

NOAA reports that red tides off southwest Florida caused mass die-offs of endangered manatees in 1963, 1982, 1996, 2002, and 2003. ​So these episodes seem to be increasing in frequency. Florida's manatee population is estimated at 4,000 to 5,000 individuals—about half the total world population of the species, according to the IUCN Red List.

Climate Change Could Mean Seven Times As Many Katrinas

| Mon Mar. 18, 2013 12:43 PM PDT

Batten down the hatches, East Coasters: A new study argues that for every one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees F) of global warming, the US Atlantic seaboard could see up to seven times as many Katrina-sized hurricanes.

That's the conclusion of Aslak Grinsted, a climatologist at Copenhagen's Niels Bohr Institute, who led an effort to match East Coast storm surge records from the last 90 years with global temperatures. His results, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest that the strongest hurricanes are likely to become more commonplace with only half the level of warming currently projected by scientists.

Red represents hurricane projections with one degree (C) global warming; blue represents no warming. The gap between these lines suggests that a warmer climate will produce more frequent hurricanes; the gap is widest at the top, meaning the biggest increase will be with the biggest storms. Courtesy PNAS

"There is a sensitivity to warming, and it is surprisingly large," Grinsted said.

The study compiled storm surge measurements from tide gauges at six locations on the East and Gulf Coasts, filtering out the effects of seasonal cycles, daily tides, and overall sea level rise to isolate the impact of storms. Next, these records were stacked against both global temperatures and a series of other climatic factors, like natural water temperature cycles and regional rainfall. The result? Global temperatures turned out to be one of the best predictors for hurricane activity. Using computer models, Grinsted found that a one-degree (C) rise in global temperatures could multiply extreme hurricane frequency by two to seven times.

When it comes to extreme weather, hurricanes are among the most costly events—and also among the least understood. Most of our understanding of the link between hurricanes and climate change traces to a research paper released in 2010 that argued that hurricanes worldwide could become up to eleven percent more intense by 2100; Grinsted's research adds the wrinkle that the biggest storms, in addition to becoming bigger, are likely to happen more often. That is, in the US: Grinsted said exact projections would likely differ for other coastlines across the world.

Obama's New New Climate Plan

| Fri Mar. 15, 2013 10:19 AM PDT

On Friday, President Obama announced plans for a $2 billion research initiative for clean energy technology.

Here's how the White House described it:

Over 10 years, the Energy Security Trust will provide $2 billion for critical, cutting-edge research focused on developing cost-effective transportation alternatives. The funding will be provided by revenues from federal oil and gas development, and will not add any additional costs to the federal budget. The investments will support research into a range of technologies – things like advanced vehicles that run on electricity, homegrown biofuels, and domestically produced natural gas. It will also help fund a small number of real-world experiments that try different transportation techniques in cities and towns around the country using advanced vehicles at scale.

Obama first called for an Energy Trust Fund in his State of the Union address last month. Under his plan, the $2 billion would come from royalties for federal oil and gas leases. The proposal asks Congress to include this in their 2014 budget.

This is today's second bit of good news for environmental advocates. The administration is also expected to announce that it is directing all agencies to take emissions into account when approving new projects, which includes highways, pipelines, and drilling plans. The guidance is expected to direct agencies to consider climate when they make assessments under the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act. The law was passed to look at more direct environmental risks, like the potential for oil spills or the destruction of habitat, but the White House Council on Environmental Quality is expected to tell the agencies to look at the potential impact on emissions now, too.

UPDATE: Well, perhaps we should have known this was a little too good to be true for a Friday. The Washington Post is reporting that the Obama administration plans to revise rules on emissions from new power plants it released last year, which would likely delay their implementation. 

The discussions center on the first-ever greenhouse gas regulations for power plants, which were proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency nearly a year ago. Rewriting the proposal would significantly delay any action, and might allow the agency to set a separate standard for coal-fired power plants, which are roughly twice as polluting as those fueled by natural gas.
While the move could bolster the administration’s legal justification for regulating power plants’ carbon emissions, any retreat on the rules would be a blow to environmental groups and their supporters, who constituted a crucial voting block for President Obama and other Democrats in last year's elections.

Will North Carolina Nix Its Renewable Energy Mandate?

| Fri Mar. 15, 2013 3:00 AM PDT
solar panels

In North Carolina, legislators are working to undo the progress their state has made on renewable energy.

Back in 2007, it was the first southern state to pass a renewable energy mandate. The law requires investor-owned utilities to draw 12.5 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2021. But House bill 298, introduced on Wednesday, would end that mandate altogether.

Let's just savor, for a minute, this nugget about the bill's sponsor, from the Charlotte Observer:

The bill’s leading sponsor, Republican Rep. Mike Hager, is a former Duke Energy engineer who has repeatedly said that energy sources for generating electricity should be chosen on a least-cost basis rather than being selected by government policy. The leading nonrenewable options are natural gas, coal and nuclear.
"I don’t think you should be subsidizing businesses into longevity," Hager said. “I’ve had one or two tell me they’ll never get off subsidies. I’ll pay for them, my children will pay for them and my grandchildren will pay for them.”

Duke Energy, may I remind you, is the largest utility in the country, one that has received millions and millions in subsidies for fossil fuels over the years.

Greenpeace's Connor Gibson points out that Hager's bill resembles the "Electricity Freedom Act," a piece of model legislation rolling back renewable energy mandates promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, the well-known public policy group uniting conservative lawmakers and corporate interests. Yes, Hager has a history of involvement with the organization.

Under its current law, the state has added clean energy-related jobs. Environmental Entrepreneurs, a program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, released a report recently finding that North Carolina announced more new clean energy and transportation projects than any other state in 2012. NRDC reports these projects were set to create 10,867 new jobs—more than in anywhere else besides California.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Deadly Bat Fungus Now in 22 States

| Wed Mar. 13, 2013 3:00 AM PDT
A bat with white-nose syndrome.

This story first appeared on Scientific American's Extinction Countdown blog.

A dead tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) found at Table Rock State Park in South Carolina has tested positive for Geomyces destructans, the deadly and mysterious fungus that has killed millions of bats since it was first observed in February 2006. The fungus has now been found in 22 US states and five Canadian provinces.

When visible, G. destructans manifests as a fuzzy white patch on bats' noses, wings and other hairless parts of their body, a condition that yielded the name white-nose syndrome (WNS). Scientists do not yet know if the fungus itself is killing the bats or if it is just a symptom of whatever else is causing the deaths. What we do know is that bat populations that contract the fungus have a 70 to 100 percent mortality rate. There is no known cure or treatment. The fungus thrives only in cold conditions, so WNS appears to threaten only hibernating bats at this time.

Here's where the disease has been found:

Bats have tested positive for white-nose syndrome in 22 eastern states.

"The news that white-nose syndrome has been confirmed in South Carolina is devastating for these very important mammals," Mary Bunch, wildlife biologist with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said in a prepared release. "We will continue to work closely with our partners to understand the spread of this deadly disease and to help minimize its impacts to affected bat species."

The loss of North American bats could lead to agricultural losses of more than $3.7 billion per year.

According to the South Carolina state agency, the tri-colored bat colony in Table Rock State Park lives in an isolated region where the general public can’t reach them, so there is no threat of human contact. Some scientists fear that people may be transmitting the fungus from cave to cave, although its most obvious transmission path is bat to bat.

Other bat species living in South Carolina that could become exposed to WNS include the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), Eastern small-footed bat (M. leibii), Northern long-eared bat (Nyctophilus arnhemensis) and Southeastern bat (M. austroriparius). None of these species are currently listed as endangered, but we have already seen bat populations across the northeast plummet due to WNS, so this is a bad sign for all of South Carolina's bats.

Bats have an important role in regulating insect populations, a function that is vital to successful agriculture. A recent study found that the loss of North American bats could lead to agricultural losses of more than $3.7 billion per year.

Could Waxman's New Bill Offer New Hope for a Carbon Tax?

| Tue Mar. 12, 2013 4:23 PM PDT
Clockwise from top left: Whitehouse, Blumenauer, Waxman, Schatz

It's been a few years now since Representatives Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) led an ambitious but doomed charge to get a carbon-pricing bill through Congress.

But in the wake of President Obama's climate-centric State of the Union and Inaugural addresses, a growing number of Democratic lawmakers are grinding out bills that would make polluters pay for their greenhouse gas emissions. Last month, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced plans to introduce a bill this spring to place a $20-per-ton tax on CO2, a move they argue could raise $1.2 trillion over the next decade. And today, Rep. Waxman, along with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), and Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), hopped on the bandwagon with their own draft carbon-pricing scheme. Waxman's legislation hasn't been formally introduced into Congress, but is open for public feedback until April 12.

The two bills both aim to confront climate change by harnessing the power of the free market, a spokesperson for Rep. Waxman said, but offer different mechanisms for doing so. The Waxman bill would target power plants, for example, while the Boxer bill would focus on "upstream" emitters like coal mines and oil refineries. But both bills are likely to undergo tweaks before being officially introduced.

The as-yet-unnamed Waxman bill would require the EPA and Treasury Department to collaborate on assessing how much big polluters are emitting, and levying an appropriate fee.

The exact price per ton of carbon pollution is still an open question (the lawmakers are seeking public input on this and other issues), but the draft bill purports to be based on the principle that "all revenue generated by the carbon pollution fee should be returned the American people." Options for this could include using the money to lower the federal deficit, or helping the public shoulder higher energy costs.

Franz Matzner, a government affairs analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said despite the bad track record for past bills like this, now isn't the time to be cynical.

"Waxman and the others have done exactly the right thing in putting this bill out," he said, "and reminding Congress that there's important work to be done on their end for climate change."

The Most Radioactive Man on Earth Has the Kindest Heart

| Tue Mar. 12, 2013 3:40 AM PDT
Naoto Matsumura with cows near Fukishima, Japan.Naoto Matsumura, a 53-year-old fifth-generation rice farmer, returned to his contaminated home near Japan's Fukushima power plant to care for his cows:
 
UPDATE: Many of you asked where to donate to help Naoto and the animals he's caring for. VICE told me this: "This is the NPO organization that Naoto and his supporters run: http://ganbarufukushima.blog.fc2.com/. It's a Japanese website but on the middle-left there is donation information in English."
 

This 18-minute video by VICE Japan profiles Naoto Matsumura, a 53-year-old fifth-generation rice farmer who went back into the dead zone around Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant to take care of his cows (and pigs, cats, dogs, and ostriches), and then stayed there. If you're wondering why anyone would live in a place with >17 times normal radiation, Naoto, in the video, explains his rationale on moral grounds. Including this:

Our dogs didn't get fed for the first few days. When I did eventually feed them, the neighbors' dogs started going crazy. I went over to check on them and found that they were all still tied up. Everyone in town left thinking they would be back home in a week or so, I guess. From then on, I fed all the cats and dogs every day. They couldn’t stand the wait, so they’d all gather around barking up a storm as soon as they heard my truck. Everywhere I went there was always barking. Like, 'we’re thirsty' or, 'we don’t have any food.' So I just kept making the rounds."

As for the filmmakers, Ivan Kovac and Jeffrey Jousan, here's some of what they had to say:

The radiation dosage per hour inside Naoto’s house, as measured by the Geiger counter we brought with us, is two microsieverts per hour, and outside our reader spiked to seven microsieverts. When we asked Doctor Hiroyuki Koide at the Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute how bad this was for Naoto, he said, "Japanese law states that any location with an hourly dosage exceeding 0.6 microsieverts [per hour] should be designated as a radiation-controlled area and closed off to the general populace. Once inside a radiation-controlled area you can’t drink the water, and you really shouldn’t eat anything. It’s inconceivable to me that a normal person could live there."

All of the other ~15,000 residents of Naoto's town still live in shelters—except for Naoto and his animals. And they're not going anywhere, say the filmmakers.

Climate Change is Biggest Threat, Says Top Navy Commander in Pacific

| Tue Mar. 12, 2013 3:15 AM PDT
Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, commander of the Pacific Command.Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, commander of the Pacific Command, talks to Sailors aboard Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Barry:

As I wrote in Full Green Ahead in the current issue of Mother Jonesthe US Navy is paying close attention—and giving far more than lip service—to the problems underway from a changing climate. But until now no one's said it quite so loudly as Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of the US Pacific Command.

Locklear met privately with scholars at Harvard and Tufts universities on Friday and said that the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region is climate change, reports the Boston Globe, and that significant upheaval related to the warming planet is:

"Probably the most likely thing that is going to happen... that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about." Locklear continued: "People are surprised sometimes, [but] you have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level. Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17."

What's really interesting here is that the US has declared the Asia Pacific region (and all its security issues from North Korea, China, Japan, and the South China Sea) its primary security focus. "After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly in blood and treasure," President Obama told the Australian Parliament in 2011, "the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia Pacific region." Now Admiral Locklear is saying that among all those juicy potentials, climate change is likely to be the single biggest piece of trouble.

Cyclone Sandra in the South Pacific on 10 March 2013
Cyclone Sandra in the South Pacific on 10 March 2013: NASA image courtesy Jeff Schmaltz

To get a sense of how huge that is, listen to Ret. Rear Admiral Dave Titley, whom I interviewed for my Navy piece last spring, when he was Oceanographer of the Navy and director of Task Force Climate Change. He was pretty forthright then about the giant issues facing the Navy from rising sea levels and a melting Arctic (more here). So this is what he had to say Monday about Locklear's precedent-setting statement in Boston:

For those that follow climate change and national security, having the Commander of the US Pacific Command (Admiral Sam Locklear) highlight climate change as a significant 'threat' to his area of responsibility is a big deal. While other 'Combatant Commanders (specifically Africa and US Northern Commands) have talked about Climate Change, the Pacific Command (and its Commander) are a 'big deal' in the security world. This is the command that deals with China, the South China Sea, the Korean Peninsula, Japan, etc. every day. So to put Climate Change on a par with those challenges—is very significant.