How Many Times Can Rep. Mike Coffman Be Wrong About Global Warming In One Debate Answer?

When Republicans like Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado try to accept some climate science while still rejecting the need for their polluting donors to cut carbon emissions, they somehow end up sounding even dumber than if they'd just denied climate science outright:

Asked whether humans contributed significantly to climate change, [Coffman] responded that he did not think so.

Wrong. Here are 10 reasons why.

Asked whether climate change could be reversed, he answered, “Don’t know.”

Wrong. We can reverse climate change, though all we really need to do is stop accelerating it.

Asked by a Post moderator, “What? Sir?” Coffman said, “Um, no.”

Coffman quickly sought to clarify his answer, backtracking to say humans do contribute to climate change, but the magnitude of the influence is unclear.

Wrong. Temperature increases we've already seen are at least 75% attributable to manmade pollution.

“On the climate change issue, I just think the science is not quite settled."

Wrong. The greenhouse effect has been established for hundreds of years, global warming was predicted decades in advance, and it's now been confirmed by observations.

"Does it have an impact? Yes,” Coffman said. “Do I know how much of an impact it has, man-made climate change? I don’t know. But I think we need to do everything responsible to bring down carbon emissions. Sometimes, my worry is we go too far."

This is a good place to point out Rep. Coffman has taken nearly half a million dollars from the oil & gas industry in his career, making oil & gas his top industry patron.

“What happens is we push, particularly manufacturing jobs overseas to a country like China, that has no environmental rules, and those products are made with greater carbon emissions than otherwise would have been made in the United States. So I think there has to be a balance to the issue here.”

Wrong. China has announced plans to limit carbon pollution and is rapidly trying to cut is coal dependence in the face of rising protests over its insanely dangerous air pollution.

So that's a 6th wrong, but this answer comes closest to the truth of Coffman and other politicians firmly in the pocket of polluters: Your only choices are letting American polluters smash the planet or letting foreign polluters smash the planet! Or maybe a balance between those two!

Taking back our energy choices from the control of polluters is no more a possibility in Coffman's world view than accepting climate science.

If you have a few dollars laying around, donate to Coffman's Democratic challenger Andrew Romanoff.

Wildfires Destroying Colorado: Worth Debating?

Tonight's presidential debate will be held in Colorado, where wildfires recently burned 202,425 acres of land (316.3 square miles). Those wildfires killed five people, forced the evacuation of 34,500 people, and destroyed over 600 homes.

It's part of a pattern: Scientists say global warming is making large wildfires more frequent and more intense. America's next president will have to address the problem in both the short-term (more federal money going to disaster response & relief) and in the long-term (cutting carbon pollution and/or dealing with our constantly-rising cost of inaction).

Seems like something that's worth having Barack Obama and Mitt Romney discuss at tonight's debate, don't you think?

Wild West

And now a poem from my dad:

Wild West 

Oh, give me a place
where there used to be space
and the water was there to wash cars
but now there are droughts
and the forest fires sprout
and the pipeline will leave quite a scar. 

Ken Buck's Facebook Page

U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck (R-CO), like all but one GOP candidate for U.S. Senate this year, is a climate science denier. The League of Conservation Voters, which named Buck to its Dirty Dozen, takes us inside his Facebook page:

Colorado Senator Slams Bush's Oil Shale Fantasy

Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) has a great op-ed in the Washington Post today on the false promise of oil shale:

Bush and his fellow oil shale boosters claim that if only Western communities would stand aside, energy companies could begin extracting more than 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil from domestic shale deposits. If only the federal government immediately offered even more public lands for development, the technology to extract oil from rock would suddenly ripen, oil supplies would rise and gas prices would fall.

If only.

Since the 19th century, we in the West have been trying to extract oil from the vast oil shale riches that lie under our feet. It is no easy task, and past efforts have failed miserably. Commercial oil shale development would require not only immense financial investments but also an undetermined quantity of (scarce) water from the Colorado River basin and the construction of several multibillion-dollar power plants.

Sen. Salazar goes on to point out "that oil would not come easily. It would take around one ton of rock to produce enough fuel to last the average car two weeks." ThinkProgress has a great analogy about the amount of energy stored in all of our oil shale: Think of it like a trillion tons of tater tots.

So how can we tackle our energy problems? How about recharging America's economy with renewable power and energy efficient technology?