Stephen Colbert Blows Away "Wind Turbine Syndrome"

The New Bedford Standard-Times splashed a study on its front page this weekend claiming to find evidence of health effects from wind turbines ... from as far as 4,500 feet away! Wind turbines are barely audible at 900 feet and at 1,500 feet they fall below the background noise of a populated area. But somehow people three times that distance are blaming a variety of hard-to-disprove problems - trouble sleeping, general anxiety - on wind turbines.

The study itself compares wind turbine noise to "road, rail & aircraft noise," all of which we all agree can be annoying, but no one is blaming trains for making them sick or talking about tearing up all roads near houses. When the study leads off with the mind-blowing statement, "Environmental noise is emerging as one of the major public health concerns of the twenty-first century" ... well, you have to wonder if the authors might not be completely objective.

A Massachusetts effort to look at all available studies found no evidence for so-called "Wind Turbine Syndrome," while other studies have noted that giving cash to its alleged victims seems to be a miracle cure. As Stephen Colbert points out, one study that did claim to find evidence for this "syndrome" not only blamed wind turbines for weight loss and weight gain but ... herpes:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Climate Change Fueling Tick Invasion in Western Massachusetts

Catching up on some posts that got lost in the shuttle before the election. Got this email from friend in western Massachusetts in late October:

I was bow hunting yesterday afternoon for the first time this year. At the end of the hunt, I picked 14 deer ticks off of me. I have never seen this kind of infestation as bad as this. It makes you not want to wonder out into the woods. In the 31 years that I have been hunting this area, I don't think I've pulled 14 ticks off me total. Very discouraging.

Deer ticks are one of the nasty creatures that are thriving thanks to climate change. Massachusetts officials expanded the allowed take for deer hunters on Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket this year due to extremely high deer populations.

People freak out at sightings of black bears, which very rarely attack people. But we let 30 million tick-carrying, car-smashing deer wander around without a worry, because Bambi.

If You Don't Want People Parking in Your Driveway, Why Have a Driveway?

Seen while knocking on doors in New Bedford:

 Why would you give up a chunk of your yard and pay someone to pave it over if not to encourage your home's visitors to park there? Do people deliberately park in a stranger's driveway, then just walk off to go shopping? Considering a company mass-produces these signs, is this a widespread problem?

Makes you wonder if every house has a driveway in most communities because residents demand one, or if every house has a driveway because that's just what you're supposed to do in car-centric America.

"Avalanche on Bullshit Mountain"

After years of denying the science on everything from cigarettes to climate change, conservative media turned its denial to political polls this year. And as The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf writes, it meant Republicans were we the last to know things were going wrong:

Most conservative pundits know better than this nonsense -- not that they speak up against it. They see criticizing their own side as a sign of disloyalty. I see a coalition that has lost all perspective, partly because there's no cost to broadcasting or publishing inane bullshit. In fact, it's often very profitable. A lot of cynical people have gotten rich broadcasting and publishing red meat for movement conservative consumption. [...]

It ought to be an eye-opening moment. But I expect that it'll be quickly forgotten, that none of the conservatives who touted a polling conspiracy will be discredited, and that the right will continue to operate at an information disadvantage. After all, it's not like they'll trust the analysis of a non-conservative like me more than the numerous fellow conservatives who constantly tell them things that turn out not to be true.

Meanwhile, Jon Stewart watched the right-wing media's fantasy land crumble with delight:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

A True Change Election

If Republicans can't get enough old white dudes to support their extremist policies, they have to cheat by trying to prevent young & brown people from voting - and even that doesn't work anymore.

That's what I'll remember most about the 2012 election. Yes, I'll remember Mitt Romney making class warfare explicit with his 47% comment, Paul Ryan making generational warfare explicit in the vice presidential debate, Rick Santorum explaining that he's against welfare for blah people, George Allen running a campaign that made Fred Thompson look passionate & energetic, and Scott Brown begging Elizabeth Warren to stop bringing his party into their campaign. Oh, and Mitt wanting to fire Big Bird.

The 2012 elections have revealed just how much the GOP's exclusionary extremism - against brown people, against women's rights,  against LGBT equal rights, against young people, against low-income families, against conservation, against cities - have narrowed Republican path to victory. It was breathtaking (and little admitted in a media that ate up Romney's claims of a Secret Plan to Win the Rust Belt) how much the GOP has narrowed its field of play, as Buzzfeed visually explained.

When you hear that Mitt Romney barely scraped out a win in North Carolina while losing Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa and likely Florida ... and that a Senate that was supposed to be primed for GOP takeover is now a Democratic gain ... if I was a Republican, I'd be wondering how Karl Rove's plan for a permanent conservative majority has suddenly flipped into a minimum of eight years of playing defense.

As Duncan Black put it at Atrios, "For awhile it was 'the heartland' and 'the South' and now it's simply 'white dudes in the heartland and the South.'" And with that core constituency, the plan still worked! They not only won big percentages of white men, they turned them out in high numbers. The GOP's percentage of the white vote was the highest it's been since George H.W. Bush clobbered Mike Dukakis in 1988.

But in 2012, that's not enough to win a national election - or even a statewide election in much of America. Look at Jon Tester pulling out a surprise win in Montana, or Bill Nelson destroying Connie Mack in Florida.

I wish I could say that I was confident today that Republicans across America are blinking their eyes, wondering how they could've fallen under the spell of Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh & David Koch as they lined their own pockets and marginalized the entire party. In an ideal world, a Republican Party interested in broadening its base could return to that pragmatic past and play a critical role in hammering out solutions to some of our biggest problems - from immigration reform to climate action to easing skyrocketing student loan debt burden.

I grew up in a New England that was filled with reasonable Republicans, people like Lincoln Chafee, Bill Weld and Jim Jeffords. Having strong, sensible Republican candidates on the ballot kept Democrats honest & on their toes. (And unlike Christine O'Donnell, Richard Mourdock & Todd Akin, they actually won statewide elections.) But you know how this story ends: Chafee, Weld & Jeffords were all subsequently cast out of the GOP.

But today those same hucksters are telling Republicans that they didn't go far right enough. It was Sandy! And the media! And the blahs! And Mitt was never one of us in the first place! And if you'll just write a check to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or Karl Rove's Super PAC, next time it'll all be different. They promise.

Conventional Wisdom Fortune-Tellers Act Blindsided by Data

Until Hurricane Sandy, the political media derided anyone who said global warming was fueling extreme weather as an environmental activist who was overstating science to make his case. Then Sandy came, and the media acted like no one could have seen it coming.

Today, the pundits all insist the presidential race is a toss-up and Nate Silver is a moron for saying otherwise. Tuesday night, they'll all insist no one could possibly have predicted Barack Obama would decisively win the Electoral College.

In fortune-telling business, it's important to insist that only you are allowed to look into the magic crystal ball and see the future. Otherwise the rube forking over $5 for a phony fortune might be able to tell you're a huckster with a glass toy and maybe they'd be better off controlling their own destiny.

Bill Koch Lashes Out at Massachusetts: Why Won't You Sacrifice Your Health to Protect My View?

Bill Koch is finally speaking out about his opposition to Cape Wind, and he has a question Massachusetts residents: Why do you jerks keep prioritizing clean air, clean water, and a stable climate over the luxurious views of a handful of extraordinarily wealthy Cape residents?

The reclusive oil, gas and coal baron has been posing as an environmentalist to try to stop Cape Wind, spending millions of his personal fortune to delay the clean energy project. But he finally sat down for an interview with Patrick Cassidy of the Cape Cod Times, and wouldn't you know it, it turns out protecting wildlife isn't exactly at the top of his list:

"Cape Wind to me is somewhat of an irritant," said Osterville property owner and billionaire William Koch, who has contributed $4 million to Romney's campaign.

Koch said he views Cape Wind in two ways: "No, 1, it's visual pollution. For some reason in Massachusetts that doesn't count for much."

The second problem: Cape Wind's power costs too much, he said. "Cape Wind has to get a price that is 2.5 times the current market price," he said.

To recap, Bill Koch's reasons for opposing Cape Wind are: Protecting his views (him); and keeping us hooked on low-priced but high-pollution energy sources (him again). Gee, I wonder why this guy is having so much trouble getting other people on board with his quixotic campaign to stop Cape Wind?

But let's look at his points one at a time. Here's what Cape Wind will look like from shore:

And here's what the Brayton Point coal-fired power plant in Somerset looks like from Fall River's Kennedy Park:

Which one is the eyesore?

As for the cost, those bleeding heart liberals over at NStar say Cape Wind would increase a typical monthly residential electric bill by $1.08, with electric bill increases for all types of customers within their Massachusetts service area in the 1.3% to 1.7% range. A September 2010 Suffolk / 7 News poll found 76% willing to pay at least that much, compared to only 18% not willing to pay more. A MassINC survey found 80% willing to pay at least that much, to just 17% unwilling.

The bottom line, as always, is that wind turbine opponents have a terrible case, and know it. You never hear the Koch-funded "Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound" front group talking about protecting Bill Koch's view.

Clean energy projects like Cape Wind can cut our dependence on dirty fossil fuels that emit the pollution that causes global warming and asthma and puts mercury in our waterways and fish and pregnant women. They can also create jobs and make our energy supply more dependable and secure, benefiting everyone at a tiny cost.

But clean air, healthy kids and energy security are the last thing that a selfish, polluting extremist like Bill Koch wants to talk about. Want to stand up to him? Pledge to stand with Cape Wind right now.

Business Week: It's Global Warming, Stupid

Like a Disaster Movie with Deficit Concern Trolls

Gothamist shares this post-Sandy subway map created by Zach van Schouwen. Looks like a giant lizard took a bite out of New York:

But instead of Robert Downey, Jr. quickly coming up with a plan to save the day with everyone doing their part to help, we have contrarian reporters scolding "you can't PROVE it was the lizard" and Beltway pundits asking "at a time of big deficits, can we afford the plan to fight the giant lizard?"

Real life is the worst.

Seth Meyers on "The Steroid Era of Storms"

Climate scientists compare global warming's impact on weather with the influence of steroids on baseball - it changes the playing field and loads the dice for extreme results.

Last night on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon before an empty studio as Hurricane Sandy raged outside, Seth Meyers took the analogy one step further - just like we ignored that our favorite baseball players were bulking up, the presidential debates have ignored climate change's impact on extreme weather.

Skip to 1:55:

Another Unanswered Hurricane Sandy Question

Remind me again why it's against the rules for President Obama to point out that a never-before-seen storm like Hurricane Sandy might be reason to take climate action now? Or that it might be reason for voters to choose candidates who support climate action?

Oh, right. Might anger people who think pointing out scientific reality is politicizing disaster. But aren't those people already voting for Mitt Romney? If not already hosting right-wing talk shows?

Warmer Water Fueling Hurricane Sandy: How Will Science Deniers Respond?

Hurricane Sandy is being fueled by water temperatures off the Atlantic Coast that are five degrees warmer than normal, one of several ways global warming is lending strength to the storm.

How are climate science deniers responding to that fact? Denying the water is warmer? Insisting that the water must be warm for some other reason?

Watts Up With That has a really long post on Sandy that does a great job of seeming like it's responding to the climate link without actually doing so (Sandy is just like Hazel which happened in 1954, so it can't be global warming! ... except Sandy formed a full 17 days later in the year) and avoids the water temperature question altogether. National Review's Planet Gore has barely responded to Sandy at all. Climate Depot ... whew, I'd never actually been there and the site's layout is such a mess good luck finding anything, but it seems to be responding to climate change's influence on Sandy by plugging its ears and yelling NO NO NO NOT HAPPENING.

Anyone seen a climate denier response to warmer water temperatures fueling Sandy? If so, post the link in comments. Thanks!

Hurricane Sandy, Climate Change & New England's Stormy Future

A new report from Rep. Ed Markey on the impact of climate change on New England:

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) today released a report that pulls together the latest studies on climate change’s negative effects on New England, painting a picture of a region already changed, and in danger of losing essential characteristics and economic engines.

“If climate change continues unchecked, Hurricane Sandy won’t be our October surprise, it could be the new normal for New England, where dangerous storms and other climate effects put lives and livelihoods in danger,” said Rep. Markey, who is the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee and the co-author of the only climate change bill to pass a chamber of Congress. “The Perfect Storm was supposed to be a once-in-a-lifetime event, but climate change is increasing the chances of these sorts of historic extreme weather events.” [...]

“We have some of the best skiing, fishing and foliage in the world in New England, and it all is at risk due to climate change,” said Rep. Markey. “In order to save our traditions, we need more innovations that will cut the carbon pollution that is changing the very face of our planet.”

Stronger storms, weatier summers, slushy skiing, lower maple syrup production, more ticks, fewer of the tastiest fish ... not a pretty picture.

Let's drill down into what we know about climate change and Sandy as she approaches the East Coast. How is man-made global warming influencing to the storm? Two of the key ways: Warmer water and changing weather patterns. Weather Underground's Jeff Masters details the warm water's influence:

If Sandy makes landfall farther to the north near Maine and Nova Scotia, heavy rains will be the main threat, since the cold waters will weaken the storm significantly before landfall. The trees have fewer leaves farther to the north, which will reduce the amount of tree damage and power failures compared to a more southerly track. However, given that ocean temperatures along the Northeast U.S. coast are about 5°F above average, there will be an unusually large amount of water vapor available to make heavy rain. If the trough of low pressure approaching the East Coast taps into the large reservoir of cold air over Canada and pulls down a significant amount of Arctic air, the potential exists for the unusually moist air from Sandy to collide with this cold air from Canada and unleash the heaviest October rains ever recorded in the Northeast U.S., Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. This Northeast U.S. scenario would probably cause damages near $100 million dollars.

Climate Central's Andrew Freedman explains the shifting patterns:

Such a scenario looks plausible partly due to an unusual, independent weather pattern projected for early next week: a large dome of high pressure between the Canadian Maritimes and Greenland, which may act as a block (it's tecnically known as as a “blocking high”), preventing Sandy from moving out into the open ocean, and instead helping to direct it northwestward, back toward the U.S.

Recent studies have shown that blocking highs have appeared with greater frequency and intensity in recent years, which some scientists think may be related to the loss of Arctic sea ice as a result global warming.

And this is just one impact of climate change in one corner of the country - similar stories are playing out with wildfires in the West, drought in the Midwest, and floods in the South. Yet climate change is barely mentioned on the campaign trail.

Why aren't all the Very Serious People seeking Tough Choices to Real Problems silent on climate solutions? You don't think they're only talking about the deficit as an excuse to slash or eliminate Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid to fund tax cuts for themselves because they don't actually care about current or future poor people, do you?

Another Polluter Front Group Issues Fake Climate Report

The Cato Institute, a former big tobacco front group that now shills for big polluters, is putting out a phony report designed to fool reporters into thinking it's related to an actual U.S. government climate science report.

It's not the first time a polluter front group has tried to trick reporters. Back in 2008, the Heartland Institute put out the "NIPCC report," trying to glom onto the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

What's most bizarre is that Cato and Heartland then go around whining that no one takes them seriously as an authority on climate science.

It would be like me going up on stage in a wig & skinny jeans, calling myself Justin Biemer, and singing "Boyfriend," then complaining no one took me seriously as an artist.

Why Won’t Inhofe’s Pro-Pollution, Anti-Women Tour Stop in MA for Scott Brown?

Hey, Sen. Jim Inhofe! You forgot to include Scott Brown in your "give me a Republican Senate so I can let Big Oil and Big Coal murder the Environmental Protection Agency" tour!

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is hitting the road to fire up support for GOP Senate candidates opposed to Obama administration rules on coal and other energy sources.

Inhofe's due to stop in Montana, Missouri and Ohio. Surely, it must be some sort of oversight that Sen. Inhofe isn't making a stop in Massachusetts, amirite?

“We’re real close to a presidential election win and close to an election that will elect [Montana Republican Senate candidate] Denny Rehberg and give us a majority," Inhofe said, according to the Billings Gazette. [...]

Montana was Inhofe's first stop on a three-state swing in which he will stump for candidates who want to repeal environmental rules the Oklahoman opposes. The current ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Inhofe is in line to take the chair if Republicans control the Senate.

Elizabeth Warren detailed the Brown-Inhofe connection at the first debate:

Sen. Brown has been going around the country talking to people saying you've gotta contribute to his campaign because it may be for the control of the Senate. And he's right. This race may really be for the control of the Senate. But what that would mean is, if the Republicans take over the Senate, Jim Inhofe would become the person who would be in charge of the committee that oversees the Environmental Protection Agency. He's a man who's called global warming a hoax. In fact, that's the title of his book. A man like that should not be in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency overseeing their work. I just don't understand how we could talk about going in that direction.

Read more about why electing Scott Brown would help Sen. Inhofe run wild in a Republican Senate, leading to disaster for our climate, air & water quality and for women's rights, at KeepTheSenateBlue.com.

Mann Fights Back, Sues Climate Science Slimers

The Republican war on science faces a new counterattack - a libel lawsuit filed by climate scientist Michael Mann against the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute.

From Mann's Facebook page:

Dr. Mann, a Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, has instituted this lawsuit against the two organizations, along with two of their authors, based upon their false and defamatory statements accusing him of academic fraud and comparing him to a convicted child molester, Jerry Sandusky. [...]

In response to these types of accusations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation and seven other organizations have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann’s work, finding any and all allegations of academic fraud to be baseless. Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.

Despite their knowledge of the results of these many investigations, the defendants have nevertheless accused Dr. Mann of academic fraud and have maliciously attacked his personal reputation with the knowingly false comparison to a child molester. The conduct of the defendants is outrageous, and Dr. Mann will be seeking judgment for both compensatory and punitive damages.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli clumsy attempt at "investigating" Dr. Mann's work was laughed out of court. Mann has been contemplating a lawsuit for months and is now moving forward, so he must feel he has a much stronger legal case than science's hapless enemies.

Like Affordable Housing? Oppose Parking Minimums

Even within the city limits of Boston, one of America's great walkable cities & home to one of the country's most-used transit systems, developers are required to build a minimum of half a space for each unit of housing up to a ridiculous 1.5 parking spaces per unit of housing, whether the residents want them or not. It adds to the cost of housing and adds an incentive to drive - if you're forced to pay for a parking spot, you feel like you should keep a car there (or at least a large, rectangular box).

But some mavericky developers are boldly refusing to build things their customers don't want to pay for:

One of those developers is Dave Mullens with the Urban Development Group. He opened the Irvington Garden in a close-in Northeast Portland neighborhood last year. It’s 50 units with no parking places.

“The cost of parking would make building this type of project on this location unaffordable,” Mullens says.

Mullens calls the difference “tremendous.”

“Parking a site is the difference between a $750 apartment and a $1,200 apartment. Or, the difference between apartments and condos,” he says. Mullens says the current market is friendlier for affordable rental apartments than for condominiums. He says the Irvington Garden filled within weeks of opening, and has remained that way. He says the majority of renters don’t have cars – though some do, and park on the street.

And when some renters DO park on the street? Duncan Black flagged the worst horror stories single-family-home-owning neighbors have had to offer:

“The personal anecdotes I’ve heard have to do with elderly relatives coming to visit, or driving into the neighborhood, and having to park a block or two away, and/or fears about that.”

Parking a block or two away??

Is PEER's New England Chapter Lost in the Woods?

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility does some great work nationally, but the PEER New England Chapter's strong opposition to an offshore wind project has split the group from many of its traditional allies in the conservation community, with its opposition to a public transportation initiative also raising eyebrows.

While most conservation groups are supporting Cape Wind or at least staying neutral, PEER's New England Chapter has joined wealthy oil baron William Koch in vehemently opposing the project. Even though Cape Wind would lead to massive reductions in air pollution, including the greenhouse gases fueling the climate change that threatens people and wildlife, PEER New England Chapter Chair Kyla Bennett says the potential threats to wildlife are too great. Mr. Koch, for his part, wants you to believe his opposition is all about environmental preservation and not at all about protecting the views of a handful of wealthy Cape Cod landowners.

PEER's New England Chapter is also the environmental group most often cited in opposing a plan to extend commuter rail from Boston to the SouthCoast cities of Fall River and New Bedford, both in desperate need of an economic boost. Despite highways clogged due to limited transit options and extensive environmental reviews, PEER's New England Chapter says trains wouldn't be worth the money and would cause irreparable damage to the Hockomock Swamp.

PEER New England Chapter Chair Kyla Bennett lives in Easton, MA, which is next to the swamp. As New Bedford Standard-Times columnist Jack Spillane put it, "Apparently, development in and around the Hockomock Swamp is alright when it's for the benefit of mostly white suburbanites, but not so acceptable when it's for the benefit of urban people, many of whom are of color."

Reasonable people can debate the costs and benefits of each project and disagree about the best course of action. But to me (and here is where I should remind you that, as always, I speak only for myself on this blog), it comes down to this: Is environmentalism about pragmatism to benefit the many? Or absolutism to protect the few?

BP Wants Sweetheart Oil Spill Settlement

I spent weeks covering the Gulf oil disaster for the National Wildlife Federation, so to hear that BP thinks it can bully the Justice Department into giving it a sweetheart settlement deal? What's the word I'm looking for?

Malarkey.

I recently moved from the DC area to New Bedford, MA, whose waters have been fouled by not one but two major oil spills in the last 40 years - the Florida barge spill in 1969 and the Bouchard No. 120 spill in 2003. You may not have heard much about either of those spills because New Bedford ain't exactly Miami Beach, but fishermen and wildlife lovers can still tell you plenty about the reduced catches and silent marshes.

Gulf Coast residents can stop me if this sounds familiar: The companies responsible wrote their checks, the government cleaned up what it could & moved on, but the oil from both spills isn't hard to find.

Tell U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to hold BP fully accountable.

Subsidized Past, Bleak Future: Time for Big Coal to Stop Blaming Treehuggers & Face Reality

Over at Coal Tattoo, Ken Ward Jr. flags some real talk from a coal industry analyst:

Calling the uncertain future of Central Appalachian coal mining the “elephant in the room,” industry consultant Alan Stagg said he expects mining in the high-cost region to cease in the next 10 to 20 years. Speaking at Platts Coal Marketing Days on Sept. 21, Stagg said producers in Central Appalachia need to accept that difficult physical mining conditions, combined with inescapable regulatory restrictions, will soon erase profitability.

“This is the elephant in the room. No one wants to acknowledge that reserve depletion is profound,” said Stagg, president and CEO of Stagg Resource Consultants Inc. “Mining conditions are difficult, and the cost to produce is high. That is a physical fact. It’s not pleasant. Nobody wants to acknowledge it. That is a fact, and companies that ignore that fact will not do so well.” [...]

“Are recent regulatory pressures a straw man in addressing problems facing the coal industry?” he asked. “Even if U.S. coal companies got all of their permits, what would they do with them? You cannot sell that coal at $40, $45 or even $50 per ton.”

Blaming treehuggers is way easier than admitting to your investors, consumers & policy-makers that you picked all the low-hanging fruit decades ago & every remaining ton of coal (or barrel of oil) will be increasingly expensive to extract.

Meanwhile Reuters reports, "Asian economies, hungry for coal, stand to gain from a U.S. program meant to keep domestic power cheap and abundant." How much is at stake? "One analyst concludes that the federal government missed out on nearly $30 billion in revenue over the last three decades through poor management of the coal lease program."

Talk about picking winners & losers! How much better off would we be right now if the government had let the free market decide our power sources & just cut $30 billion in checks directly to help Americans pay their power bills?

Eliminating coal subsidies now would be a small step towards making things right - but right now, it sounds like coal companies need all the government welfare they can get.

Despite Media's Best Efforts, Climate Science & Carbon Cuts Still Not Controversial

Americans know global warming is happening and want the federal government to regulate the carbon pollution that's causing it. From a recent Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation poll:

36. Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat? 

SHOULD 74% (51% strongly, 23% somewhat)
SHOULD NOT 23% (13% strongly, 8% somewhat)
NO OPINION 5%

The numbers hold strong across party lines - 87% of Democrats, 73% of independents, and even 61% of Republicans want the federal government to limit carbon pollution. The numbers are backed up by another new poll from the Pew Research Center.

A skeptic might point out this question doesn't force a hard choice - what about cost? Well, a 2009 Washington Post poll (when support for climate action was much lower) showed a majority of voters (55%) would support carbon pollution limits even if it cost them $25 a month, a figure far above actual cost estimates.

But studies show the American media keeps reporting climate action as controversial and looking for scientific debate where there is none. Media critic Jay Rosen calls it verification in reverse - un-nailing it.

HEY WORLD, LISTEN UP: AMERICANS ARE TOTALLY GONNA KICK CLIMATE CHANGE'S ASS

THAT'S RIGHT, I SAID TAKE A KNEE, EUROPE/ASIA/AFRICA/WHATEVER OTHER TINY BACKWATER ISLANDS ARE TRYING TO CALL THEMSELVES A CONTINENT THESE DAYS: AMERICA IS HERE TO CONFRONT CLIMATE CHANGE, AND WE ARE GOING TO KICK ITS ASS.

LOOK, IN AMERICA WE DON'T CHANGE OUR RISKY BEHAVIORS - WE JUST KEEP TRYING NEW RISKY CURES THAT MIGHT LET US CONTINUE THE RISKY BEHAVIOR.

SO WE'RE DRILLING FOR MORE OIL THAN EVER WHILE A CALIFORNIA BUSINESSMAN IS DUMPING SHITLOADS OF IRON SULPHATE INTO THE PACIFIC OCEAN.

BECAUSE IF THERE'S A CHANCE WE CAN STILL KEEP POLLUTING OUR AIR AND WATER BY BURNING AS MUCH OIL AND COAL AS WE WANT NO MATTER HOW EXPENSIVE IT GETS, HOW AWESOME WOULD THAT BE? IF WE HAVE TO, I DON'T KNOW, GRIND UP SOME ENDANGERED SPECIES AND BLAST 'EM INTO SPACE, WE SHOULD TOTALLY DO IT, AM I RIGHT BRO?

HIGH FIVE!

Cutting Lead Exposure Even More Beneficial to Kids Than We Thought

As fears of childhood lead poisoning swept Boston in the 1980s, The Green Miles distinctly remembers being dragged to the doctor by The Green Mom to have his blood tested for lead poisoning, despite my protestations that no kid so wicked smahht could've been impaired by lead.

Now Slate's Matt Yglesias flags new research adding to the growing mountain of evidence that those fears about lead exposure were not only justified, but understated. The research by Jessica Wolpaw Reyes published in the National Bureau of Economic Research finds cutting lead exposure has made Massachusetts children measurably smarter:

Childhood exposure to even low levels of lead can adversely affect neurodevelopment, behavior, and cognitive performance. This paper investigates the link between lead exposure and student achievement in Massachusetts. Panel data analysis is conducted at the school-cohort level for children born between 1991 and 2000 and attending 3rd and 4th grades between 2000 and 2009 at more than 1,000 public elementary schools in the state. Massachusetts is well-suited for this analysis both because it has been a leader in the reduction of childhood lead levels and also because it has mandated standardized achievement tests in public elementary schools for almost two decades. The paper finds that elevated levels of blood lead in early childhood adversely impact standardized test performance, even when controlling for community and school characteristics. The results imply that public health policy that reduced childhood lead levels in the 1990s was responsible for modest but statistically significant improvements in test performance in the 2000s, lowering the share of children scoring unsatisfactory on standardized tests by 1 to 2 percentage points. Public health policy targeting lead thus has clear potential to improve academic performance, with particular promise for children in low income communities.

When we talk about environmental regulations, the public debate centers almost entirely on cost - higher taxes, higher prices, etc. But as David Roberts has detailed, limits on lead have had massively higher benefits than anyone predicted.

It's a lesson worth remembering whenever industries or their allies scream bloody murder about efforts to limit pollutants like mercury, carbon - or even, after all these years and all this research about the massive return on investment, lead.

Things Reporters Can't Say: Mitt Romney is Lying About the Environmental Protection Agency

It's not that Mitt Romney doesn't have his facts straight about the Environmental Protection Agency. It's not that reasonable people can disagree with the Environmental Protection Agency about the best approach to solving a set of problems. Mitt Romney is choosing to lie about the Environmental Protection Agency because he thinks that will give him a political advantage.

But as Paul Krugman said on ABC's This Week, "The press just doesn’t know how to handle flat-out untruths," so you get articles like this in Politico today:

The GOP presidential nominee is telling voters in Colorado, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia that Obama’s EPA is to blame for wiping out the coal industry. Romney and his surrogates are warning Iowans of EPA plans to regulate for farm dust and railing against the agency for flying airplanes over livestock operations to spy for dirty water.

In many instances, Romney’s EPA attacks stretch the boundaries of what the agency actually does or can do. The EPA has repeatedly denied any plans for new farm dust rules, and the planes have been used as a cost-cutting enforcement measure dating back to the George W. Bush administration. Energy experts say the coal industry’s problems are a byproduct of all-time lows in natural gas prices rather than new air pollution requirements that have been subject to legal battles for more than a decade.

Mitt Romney says something that's not true. Even after widely-available facts to the contrary are pointed out, Mitt Romney keeps saying it anyway. We'll have to leave it there.

How can you tell Romney's lies are calculated and deliberate? Because he often shifts between lies and the truth depending on his audience. Talking to the Republican National Convention? Global warming's a joke. Talking to scientists? Global warming's serious business. It's part of the fabric of his campaign, as Romney's brazen lies in the first presidential debate about his $5 trillion tax cut plan and letting insurance companies deny coverage to sick people showed.

Romney is counting on articles like this to make his clear-cut lies seem debatable. As media critic Jay Rosen writes, "a post-truth campaign for president falls into the category of too big to tell."

UPDATE 10/9: As usual, The Onion can say it, but political reporters can't. "People are usually too afraid to ask me straight up if I’m lying, because that is apparently not something you ask someone who is running for president."

Big Bird vs. Big Oil

The climate crisis didn't come up in last night's presidential debate as moderator Jim Lehrer made sure Barack Obama and Mitt Romney wandered aimlessly from how much to destroy Social Security & Medicare to reduce the deficit to how many federal workers to lay off to reduce the deficit.

But Mitt Romney had another idea to cut the deficit: Fire Big Bird. It was a ZINGER!! so effective that pundits are already asking whether it will blow the bounce Romney may have otherwise received.

There's just one thing Romney won't do to cut the deficit: Ask incredibly rich people or rich corporations (or rich corporate people) to give up a dime in tax breaks or subsidies. That prompted Oil Change International & The Other 98 Percent to team up on the infographic of the night:

Paul Ryan Won't Tell You Which National Parks He'd Sell Off, Either

Everyone knows Paul Ryan doesn't want to explain the math behind the Romney-Ryan $5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy, but in a new interview with Outdoor Life, he doesn't have any more interest in explaining their plan to sell off America's public lands:

OL: In your 'Path to Prosperity' budget plan, you have several proposals to sell government property, from things like automobiles to buildings to federal land. Can you give me an example of some type of public land that may fall under that plan?

PR: Not off the top of my head, I couldn’t.

OL: What criteria, though, will you use?

PR: That would be something you have to work with Congress on. There have been lots of hearings that Congress has had on excess federal properties. The ones that we’ve looked at from budget savings were more buildings and assets like cars and things like this, a lot of vacant properties. That is really where a lot of our concern for budget savings has been. With respect to federal lands, that would take a lot more research to give you a good answer.

OL: So that’s not really a main part of that, though?

PR: That part, we thought the savings was buildings.

It's a clear part of the Romney-Ryan strategy: We won't tell you what our plans are, you just have to trust us that we'll slash taxes & it'll maybe cost nothing, gut health care but I bet you'll pull through, and auction off America's public lands but I'm sure Big Oil doesn't want the good ones so we'll fill in that blank later.

Imma Let Teddy Finish, But the Real TR is the Best of ALL TIME

I'm really happy for the Washington Nationals racing mascot Teddy, who finally won today's race after opening his career with a 525-race losing streak.

But the real Theodore Roosevelt established 150 National Forests, 51 Federal Bird Reservations, 4 National Game Preserves, 5 National Parks, 18 National Monuments, 24 Reclamation Projects, and 7 Conservation Conferences and Commissions.

Oh, and he got shot in the chest, got up, said "it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose," and gave a 90 minute speech before finally relenting and letting his staffers take him to the hospital.

THAT'S winning.

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?

We Only Eat Ugly Animals: Octopus Edition

At his Animal Oddities blog, my National Wildlife Federation coworker David Mizejewski just posted this clip of a clever octopus stealing a jar of food:

Look, I eat salmon, pigs and turkeys as often as I can, so let me state in advance I'm aware my questions here are at least a little hypocritical.

Dolphins are smart, friendly and cute, so Western society has made the collective decision that we don't eat them.

Octopuses are smart, friendly and ugly, so we eat 80 million tons a year, overfishing them to the point of declining catches. How does that work?

When do we decide we've learned enough about a species that we're now uncomfortable eating it? And when we have a vast overpopulation of cute but dumb & delicious animals like deer, at what point do we non-hunters start looking on them less as Bambi and more as food? Who asks the questions? Who decides the answers?

Coal, Oil and Gas Hope You Won't COGblock Them

Koch Collective Warns Virginia Republicans to Stop Thinking for Themselves

Remember how Virginia House Republicans took a pass on signing that Tea Party anti-wind energy letter to House Speaker John Boehner this week? Well, the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity has taken notice. The group's Virginia office is telling Virginia House Republicans to pick a side: Are you with Virginia's emerging wind energy industry, or are you with the Koch collective?

It’s time for government to stop meddling in America’s energy markets. New energy technologies should show their value in the marketplace by competing for consumers’ dollars on a level playing field—not by petitioning Washington for favors. Over 72,000 Americans for Prosperity activists call the Virginia home, and they will be watching to see how you vote on this issue. I urge you and your colleagues to oppose extending the wind production tax credit.

Sincerely, Audrey Jackson, Virginia State Director, Americans for Prosperity

Note that AFP's "level playing field" rhetoric doesn't stop it from opposing efforts to end huge taxpayer subsidies for massively-profitable oil companies. AFP, much like the Tea Party movement its Koch dollars have ginned up, is a fiscal fraud.

So which will it be, Reps. Cantor, Forbes, Goodlatte, Griffith, Hurt, Rigell, Wittman, and Wolf? Will they take a stand for Virginia clean energy jobs? Or get in line behind their Koch overlords?

My guess is they collapse by the end of the week. After all, resistance is futile.

New Walking Safety Project Blamed for 40 Years of Car-Centric Decline

From wasting prime real estate by paving it over for parking to funding expensive road-widening projects, some communities are realizing that taking a step back from the car culture is good for business. But much like parts of Appalachia won't give up on their abusive relationships with Big Coal, businesses that have suffered from their car dependency are often surprisingly reluctant to try a different approach.

Take Wareham, MA. A project called Streetscape is progressing on Main Street, hoping to make the business district easier and safer for people to get around on foot:

Finance Committee member Dominic Cammarano said something had to be done to resuscitate downtown, "which was dying even before Wareham Crossing Mall was built." He said Streetscape provides "a badly needed makeover."

Most businesses seem generally happy at the upgrades and some are understandably concerned about construction-related delays and inconveniences. But this business owner takes a special prize for blaming the treatment for the original illness:

She squarely blames the road project. While the end result is beautiful, she said, "people got out of the habit of coming here and driving down Main Street. Many customers were so bummed that they stopped coming because they could never find a parking place."

Maybe shoppers aren't returning in droves quite yet, but other people are. Irving, who has been downtown 24 years, said, "Ever since the '70s and late '80s the number of businesses has declined, as has the clientele."

Clearly, the safety improvements that started in April are to blame for the declines in business that started four decades ago. Maybe folks should give this whole "making people feel like it's not life-threateningly dangerous to window shop" thing a chance.

Most House Republicans Skip Tea Party Attack on Clean Energy

This week, 47 House Republicans sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner asking him to let key federal incentives for wind energy expire. The list of sign-ons range from swing seat Republicans desperate to fire up the Tea Party base (Maryland's Andy Harris) to genuine wackos (Texas' Louie Gohmert).

But what's most notable is how many Republicans refused to sign the letter - 194 House Republicans refused to sign on:

Although GOP districts hold 81 percent of the nation’s wind power capacity, Republicans are deeply split on investing in wind (Mitt Romney, for example, drew criticism from fellow Republicans for opposing the PTC). Boehner’s home state supports up to 6,000 wind jobs.

The GOP remains less divided on issues favoring Big Oil.

Of the 47 Republicans asking Boehner to end the wind investments, 46 voted in March 2011 against closing tax loopholes that let Big Oil collect $4 billion in annual subsidies. The one outlier, GOP Rep. Richard Hanna, was a no-vote that day. According to OpenSecrets, these representatives have received a total $2.2 million from the oil and gas industry, in an election cycle where Republicans have collected 89 percent of the oil industry’s contributions. Republicans have maintained these tax breaks are “essential” to an industry posting record-breaking profits.

According to the Tea Party, $5 billion a year to back hundreds of thousands of jobs harvesting clean, domestically-produced wind energy? Unaffordable! The billions we shovel to already-massively-profitable oil companies even though the top 5 oil companies alone banked $137 billion in profit just last year? Indispensable!

It's just more proof the Tea Party is a fraud. They don't care about fiscal responsibility or keeping the boot of big government off the little guy's neck - they care about whatever their billionaire corporate funders tell them to care about.

New Poll: Americans Feel Trapped in Their Cars

Americans would like to have more public transit options and don't know just how skewed our transportation spending is towards new roads, according to a new Natural Resources Defense Council poll:

• 55 percent prefer to drive less, but 74 percent say they have no choice 
• 63 percent (more than three in five Americans) would rather address traffic by improving public transportation (42 percent) or developing communities where people do not have to drive as much (21 percent) – as opposed to building new roads, an approach preferred by only one in five Americans (20 percent) 
• Americans over-estimate what their state spends on public transportation, estimating that it is an average of 16 percent of their state’s transportation budget – and still they would like that amount nearly doubled, calling for their state to spend an average of 28 percent on public transportation (note: The average percentage of transportation money – state plus federal – spent on transit over the past three years was 6.55 percent per state) 

Opponents of smart growth like to claim America is sprawling and car-dependent because people have sat down, carefully considered the options, and decided to move to a place far from work & friends so they can waste tons of money and countless hours stuck in traffic. But there are two realities here: People don't have all day to crunch the numbers on this stuff; and the amount of transit and by extension the amount of housing near transit is limited (and in some cases it's deliberately limited). So people often just figure out where they'd LIKE to live, then keep looking further and further away from that spot until they can find someplace that's affordable.

This poll suggests many Americans would like to live somewhere that's affordable AND has transit options, and they don't realize just how much of their tax money is going instead to subsidize The Next Phenomenally Expensive Paving Project That Will Surely Solve All Our Transportation Problems.

5 Ways Scott Brown's Climate and Energy Debate Answer Was Wrong

A viewer question focused on climate change in last night's U.S. Senate debate between Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren. Watch it starting at 22:25:
The question: Do you believe climate change is real, and if so what should the federal government be doing about it?

BROWN: Yes, I do. I absolutely believe climate change is real, and I believe there's a combination between manmade and natural. That being said one of the biggest things we can do is get an energy policy and we don't have one. Wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, coal, siting, permitting, conservation, a true all of the above approach as I have. Professor Warren has a none of the above approach. She's in favor of wind and solar. She's against the Keystone pipeline which will help create union, all you union guys listening out there, she's denying union jobs and non-union jobs. Making sure we can get more energy on the world market to stabilize those costs that you're paying at the pump. When's the last time we permitted a nuclear facility to make sure we can have that clean energy? I could go on and on but right now the role is actually a balancing role. To find that balance, Jon, because you can't just have one or this or that. she's in favor of putting wind turbines in the middle of our, uh, greatest treasure, on the Nantucket Sound. I, like, President, uh, Senator Kennedy before me believe that's not right because those ratepayers are going to pay a tremendous amount more in their daily costs, and that's not right.

Sen. Brown's response is completely wrong here in at least five different ways:

• He's wrong about climate science. "The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes," reports the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And if climate action and protecting our clean air and water are so important to Sen. Brown, why are they nowhere to be found on his website?
• He's wrong about our electricity sources. Sen. Brown forgot to mention hydrocarbon gas, which provides more than half of Massachusetts' electricity generation right now. The extremely low cost of "natural" gas is what's putting coal out of business right now, not clean air regulations. And while the nuclear power industry likes to portray itself as the victim of those big, bad anti-radiation activists, we don't build nuclear power plants anymore because they're wicked expensive.
• He's wrong on what will stop climate change. More coal and the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline? Our dependence on dirty coal is what's fueled our climate crisis in the first place. And building a new pipeline for tar sands - one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet - could be game over for stopping climate catastrophe.
• He's wrong about energy jobs. The Keystone XL pipeline would create only a fraction of the clean energy jobs that already exist in Massachusetts. TransCanada's original application estimated just 3,500-4,200 short-term construction jobs. Massachusetts' clean tech economy already employs 71,000 people.
• He's wrong about oil prices. Saying the U.S. can control the global oil market is like saying a junkie can control the cost of a hit. We have just 2% of the world's oil reserves but consume 20% of the world's oil supply. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, drilling in all of our wilderness areas desired by Big Oil combined would only mean a 4-5 cent reduction in the price of a gallon of gasoline by 2025. The only way we can reduce what we pay at the pump is by using less of it - exactly what the Obama administration is doing.
• Does even Scott Brown know what Scott Brown believes on clean energy? Says he supports wind energy, bashes Cape Wind - classic Both Ways Brown.

Here's Elizabeth Warren's response:

WARREN: Sen. Brown says that he's about a balanced approach. He's not - he's about a rigged playing field. Our clean energy industry - an industry that works here in Massachusetts - has to fight uphill against the oil subsidies. That's what tilts the playing field, and Sen. Brown has helped tilt it for the oil companies. That works against clean energy. The Keystone pipeline? Look, that's not going to produce nearly as many jobs as if we invested that same money in clean energy - that's where you produce real jobs, and that's where Massachusetts has a real advantage. But you know, I just want to stop on this one for a minute, because I think this one is really important. Sen. Brown has been going around the country talking to people saying you've gotta contribute to his campaign because it may be for the control of the Senate. And he's right. This race may really be for the control of the Senate. But what that would mean is, if the Republicans take over the Senate, Jim Inhofe would become the person who would be in charge of the committee that oversees the Environmental Protection Agency. He's a man who's called global warming a hoax. In fact, that's the title of his book. A man like that should not be in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency overseeing their work. I just don't understand how we could talk about going in that direction.

And she backs up the talk with a real plan. Check out Elizabeth Warren's comprehensive climate & energy plan.

Apple's Rotten Move: Maps App Leaves Transit Users in Dark

For a company that prides itself on doing everything with the user in mind, early reports indicate Apple has cut corners with its new maps app:

[T]he new Apple Maps app does not have transit directions included in the app. The only directions it gives are driving and walking directions. If you click on the transit option for directions, Apple clicks you off to options for other downloading other apps to find transit directions. For people who use public transit as their daily way to get around town, this doesn’t help at all. Since maps are one of the most used apps on the smart phone, this is a major loss. Of course you can go and download another transit app. But that’s not the point. Apple is downgrading transit as a method of transportation.

So what Apple is saying is that if you’re an iPhone user, you better be a driver or a walker. As for public transit, not that important. Maybe Apple employees all drive to Cupertino for work? Or they catch a free company shuttle from San Francisco? Well, maybe it will be in the next update. Not very environmentally friendly for a company that prides itself on the clean-tech aspects of its manufacturing process.

As is usually the case, a product that ignores sustainability is probably a lousy product, and sure enough, early users think Apple Maps is an inferior product to Google Maps. For users, it's no big deal - just as Windows users once began downloading Firefox, Chrome and other browsers to replace the inferior Explorer, Apple mobile users will need to download a superior maps app. Hopefully, just as Explorer faced competition and improved, Apple Maps will do the same.

But looking big picture, this seems like a really dumb move for a company with $100 billion in cash, most of it stashed overseas to avoid taxes. Couldn't it have used a tiny fraction of that cash to build a kick-ass maps app that made getting around without owning a car easier than ever? What about including locations & availability for Zipcar and other car sharing services?

Unfortunately, Apple founder Steve Jobs never seemed interested in doing any good that didn't also make the company piles of cash. It looks like that trend continues here.

Climate Scientists Just Want to Steal David Koch's PRECIOUSSS

Quick reaction to Mitt Romney's now-infamous remarks that the 47 percent of Americans too old, sick or poor to pay income taxes are lazy mooches who want the government to steal more money from rich people so they can get more free goodies.

The war on climate scientists funded by billionaires like the Koch brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife and Philip Anschutz makes much more sense when you look at it through this prism. If you already look out the window and see literally half of your fellow Americans as thieves trying to steal from you, well OF COURSE climate scientists are greedy cheaters manipulating the data to back their phony lying hoax so they can get their grubby little stealing hands on more research grants.

It's a cynical, destructive way to view the world (and life), but I understand it. What I don't understand is why anyone would take them and the organizations they fund seriously as a source for climate science, as the PBS NewsHour apparently did last night.

Toles: GOP Mascot Should Go Back to the Future

With Republican Party leadership rejecting the realities of modern science, Washington Post editorial cartoonist Tom Toles suggests it's time to update the GOP mascot:

Nuclear Power Operator Complains Wind Energy is Too Inexpensive

The American Wind Energy Association made a bold move late last week, dropping the electric utility Exelon over its opposition to extending key federal incentives for wind energy. Within The Hill reporter Zack Colman's article is this odd complaint:

[Exelon Senior Vice President David] Brown said the PTC is helping wind cut into its nuclear power business. Though the utility has 900 megawatts of installed wind electricity generation capacity, he said wind is “distorting competitive markets that we operate in" by lowering the wholesale price of electricity.

Wait, what? Wind energy is lowering electricity costs ... and that's a PROBLEM to big electric utilities like Exelon?

Federal incentives for wind energy are a drop in the bucket compared to the billions in long-term taxpayer support on which the nuclear power industry has depended. When President Obama and members of Congress talk about expanding nuclear power, they're really talking about shoveling more tax dollars at nuclear and raising your electricity rates.

I understand the reasons why the nuclear industry is afraid of extending wind energy incentives, but they're the exact same reasons average Americans should be asking their members of Congress to extend them.

Dominion Puts Brayton Point Up For Sale: The Long, Slow Death Of Coal, Ctd.

In a surprise move, Dominion has put its controversial & ginormous Brayton Point coal-fired power plant in Somerset, Massachusetts up for sale. No immediate word on any potential buyer or what it means for the plant's future.

The most comical part of the Fall River Herald News article on the sale is Dominion CEO Tom Farrell dropping every Craigslist cliche to try to fluff up the plant. Low mileage! Barely used!

But the most telling part for America's energy future comes later:

Despite Dominion spending more than $1 billion in new equipment to comply with federal environmental guidelines, Brayton Point was declared the worst emitter of greenhouse gases in New England and New York by the Environmental Protection Agency last January.

Even a billion dollars can't buy you "clean coal", a lesson many communities are learning the hard way.

Will GOP Leadership Let Petty Politics Kill Clean Energy Jobs?

The New Bedford Standard Times today calls on Congress to extend incentives for wind energy:

The tax credit works by giving wind farm owners 2.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of power they produce. It is expected to cost the federal government about $1.3 billion this fiscal year, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, a fraction of the credits that will be taken advantage of by the oil industry this year.

President Barack Obama wants the tax credit extended; GOP nominee Mitt Romney wants it to expire. Romney argues the tax credit for wind gives an unfair advantage, and that the industry should have to compete on a "level playing field" with other energy industries. This, of course, is nonsense.

Even the two Bush presidents, with their longstanding support of oil industries, were solidly behind promotion of credits for emerging energy technologies. The playing field has belonged to the industries that trade in carbon-based energy for so long that the impact of infrastructure on production costs and bottom lines is of a vastly different order than that for emerging technologies. Maybe when the lobbyists for the renewable sources have the access to legislators and influence currently enjoyed by the carbon-focused industries it will be an indication that the playing field is starting to level out.

The cost of these incentives is a drop in the bucket compared to the public health benefits, increased energy security, and cuts in carbon pollution. Massachusetts' SouthCoast region gets - in the last three months alone (a slow time for wind energy) Fairhaven banked $45,000 from its two wind turbines and is now moving forward on solar power.

From Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley to Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, many Republican members of Congress representing states with booming clean energy sectors want wind incentives extended. The Senate Finance Committee passed an extension of the credit on a bipartisan vote, but Senate Republican leadership is likely to mount a filibuster and House Republican leadership may not allow a vote at all.

Will bipartisan support for clean energy be able to overcome Congressional Republican leadership's opposition to giving President Obama victories on any of his priorities? Tell your members of Congress that we can't let petty politics kill American clean energy jobs.

Impact Of Polluter Spending On Energy Policy Can't Be Ignored

It's always interesting when reporters try to make sense of politicians' energy positions while ignoring the influence of money in politics.

At the Washington Post's WonkBlog today, Brad Plumer says the Democratic platform is getting more oil- & coal-friendly because ... maybe locking in $4 a gallon gasoline with expensive "unconventional oil" isn't so bad? And jobs or something?

But energy policy isn't created in a vacuum - it's caught in the current of a river of oil money. Oil barons continue pouring ungodly amounts of money into bullying politicians:

The Koch brothers-backed nonprofit Americans for Prosperity and pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future combined to spend about $23.4 million against President Barack Obama during the second half of August.

That’s nearly 10 times the $2.44 million that Priorities USA Action, the main super PAC supporting Obama, spent against Romney, federal records show.

Now, one might think such spending would make Democrats fight for clean energy that much harder. But many Democrats still think appeasement works, and in some ways, that's reflected in the party platform. (Note that climate change is mentioned 18 times in the Democratic platform, so Democrats aren't exactly running away from tackling the climate crisis.)

Since 1990, energy & natural resources industries (mostly Big Oil, electric utilities & mining companies) have combined to give $640 million directly to candidates, a greater majority going to Republicans with each passing year. And in the last 15 years, electric utilities and oil & gas companies have combined to pour $3 billion dollars into lobbying.

All that money doesn't just influence politicians. How many polluter-funded commercials - from Koch-sponsored political ads to BP's image-scrubbing spots - does the average American see in a given week? Dozens?

CATTLE RUSTLERS & the Warren-Brown Senate Race

States like Virginia are rightly viewed as a collection of diverse interests. Why isn't Massachusetts?

Having lived inside the Beltway for 10 years, I can tell you the view of Massachusetts from down there looks like this:

This is partly why you see so many stories out of DC about Elizabeth Warren "struggling" in the U.S. Senate race. She's Harvard faculty, isn't that like 25% of the Massachusetts electorate?

But much of the state has managed to escape the clutches of Boston & its sprawl. Even the headlines of the Standard Times of New Bedford (population 100,000) can be dominated by cattle being rustled and rescued. Cows can still wander onto interstate highways and disrupt the morning commute.

From Gloucester to Sheffield, it's not hard to find towns whose economies still depend heavily on fishing and farming. Voters there want to actually listen to what the candidates have to say, not just vote blue because that's their predetermined political destiny. 

(It's also why Scott Brown is desperately trying to be all things to all people in every corner of the state. "He's for us" is the most generic political slogan since Clint Webb's "Hey ... me?")

Mitt Romney's Climate Science Denial Flops with Convention Viewers

Mitt Romney's Republican presidential nomination acceptance speech that mocked global warming-fueled sea level rise got the lowest voter approval since Gallup start tracking reactions in 1996.