global warming

Energy Secretary-designate Steven Chu "seems about as climate friendly as they come," writes Josh Harkinson, but "more industry friendly than his rhetoric suggests." As the director of the Energy Department-funded Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Chu helped broker "the largest university-industry alliance in U.S. history, the $500 million Energy Biosciences Institute." The biofuels research institute involves the Berkeley lab, two public universities and oil giant BP. Chu pitched BP's deal to the UC-Berkeley Academic Senate, one-third of whose members voted against it. Chu also promoted the institute on campus, saying "money" was the only reason more biofuels research wasn't already underway. The university's compromise agreement gave BP half of the seats on the board governing the institute. As Energy Secretary, Chu will likely "face pressure to partner with corporations in pursuing technological solutions to climate change," notes Harkinson. "As the incoming Obama administration prepares to spend liberally to develop cleaner sources of energy, the structure of corporate-government partnerships will determine how the profits of that research return to taxpayers, and how rigorously scientists evaluate the downsides of controversial technologies such as biofuels."

David Roberts, an environmental writer for Grist.com, has written a great critique of the coal industry's "clean coal" campaign, pointing out that "it's an obvious scam -- easily exposed, easily debunked. Just because it's obvious, though, doesn't mean the media won't fall for it. Indeed, the entire 'clean coal' propaganda push is premised on the media's gullibility."

Roberts notes, as have others, including a recent report by the Center for American Progress (CAP), that "the companies funding 'clean coal' PR aren't spending much on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) research." They have therefore made no progress in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that make coal a potent cause of global warming. The concept of "clean coal" was invented to answer concerns about global warming, and its advocates play a rhetorical game of bait-and-switch on precisely this topic. When pressed about how coal can be clean, Roberts observes, "they revert to the other definition of 'clean' -- the notion that coal plants have reduced their emissions of traditional air pollutants like particulates and mercury (as opposed to greenhouse gases)."

There's nothing quite like a hotly contested election. The candidates have their devoted supporters and angry detractors. Then there are vigorous debates over the issues, while some people question the integrity of the entire process.

We speak, of course, of the Falsies Awards.

Part of the coveted AwardsThis year marks the Center for Media and Democracy's (CMD's) fifth annual Falsies Awards. The Falsies are our attempt to shine an unflattering light on those responsible for polluting the information environment over the past year. We're happy to report that more people -- nearly 1,450 -- voted in this year's Falsies survey than ever before! We're also bestowing special recognition on one of this year's "winners."

Falsies recipients can collect their prizes -- a pair of Groucho Marx glasses, our two cents and a chance to atone for their spinning ways by making a detailed public apology -- by visiting CMD's office in Madison, Wisconsin. This year's Gold and Silver Falsies go to masters of war deception, while the Bronze Falsie recognizes a massive greenwash campaign. The first-ever Lifetime Achievement Falsie goes to a serial corporate front man, while a determined (if at times laughable) attempt at nation re-branding wins dishonorable mention. Then there are the Readers' Choice Falsies and Win Against Spin Awards, nominated by our survey participants.

As scientific warnings about the potential risks of climate change intensify, governments realize they need to at least be seen as responsive to global warming concerns. But, behind the scenes, many of the world's richest countries are dragging their feet. Some are promoting unproven measures designed to insulate the coal and energy industries from change. Others want to use the global warming crisis as an opportunity to promote nuclear power. Most are balking at committing to substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, despite having signaled their intention to do just that a year ago. To help explain the issues and uncover the behind-the scenes lobbying, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is launching the Climate Change portal within the SourceWatch wiki.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conferences -- huge events, attracting some 10,000 people -- aim to create a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of 2012. Official conference documents are often hard to find and often full of mind-numbing jargon. As a result, it's hard for journalists to track what's going on and harder still for citizens to know what their governments are doing. Between now and the COP15 December 2009 meeting in Copenhagen, CMD staff and citizen editors will build SourceWatch articles on climate change issues, profile the players in the UNFCCC negotiations and unmask corporate and government greenwashing.

One current priority is a series of profiles on the policies and performances of the key richest countries. If you would like to lend a hand, just register on SourceWatch and check out this page on our Climate Change portal. Thanks for your participation!

At a December 2 "wonky event" on the "future of energy policy" sponsored by Third Way, there was a remarkably "wide range of groups represented around the table," writes Kate Sheppard. In addition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and several people with "close ties to the next administration," there were representatives from "renewable energy companies and industry groups, fossil-fuels industries, labor groups, big green groups, think tanks, and local government agencies." American Petroleum Institute president Jack Gerard argued, "As we make this transition to a ... more clean energy future, we hope people remember the important role of the basic fuels like oil and gas. ... We're significant players in terms of the innovation." Reid challenged Gerard's "innovation" claim -- "perhaps having heard that ExxonMobil ... only spent 1 percent of its massive 2007 profits on renewable energy," speculates Sheppard. Gerard countered, "British Petroleum is one of the key players in the solar sector, Chevron and others are big into wind, ExxonMobil spent a lot of time on battery development for electric cars."

Following the election victory of Barack Obama, veteran Democratic Congressman John Dingell has been ousted as chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce by Henry Waxman. Prior to the vote, the director of the Safe Climate Campaign, Dan Becker, described Dingell as having been the single biggest obstacle for over thirty years to forcing major U.S. car companies to build more fuel-efficient cars. "Mr. Dingell," Becker said, "is literally married to General Motors." Dingell's wife, Debbie Dingell, is Executive Director of Public Affairs and Community Relations for General Motors and Vice Chairman of General Motors Foundation. She was recently described as the company's "most familiar face in Washington." While she doesn't directly lobby members of Congress or the administration, the New York Times reported that "she makes the case for the company, the auto industry and the state of Michigan in public and in private."

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working to relax air quality rules and make it easier to build coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and other pollution-emitting enterprises near national parks and wilderness areas, even though half of the EPA's ten regional administrators have formally opposed the plan. The push to weaken the Clean Air Act involves changing the method used to measure air pollution near national parks so that pollution is averaged over much longer periods, effectively diluting large spikes and protecting polluters from violating the law. Mark Wenzler, who directs clean-air programs for the National Parks Conservation Association, remarked that "The Bush administration's staunch commitment to coal is so deep that they're willing to sacrifice our national parks on the way out the door." Jeffrey R. Holmstead, who served as chief of EPA's air and radiation office, helped initiate the change. Holmstead has since left EPA and now works at the power industry legal and lobbying firm Bracewell & Giuliani.

A cardinal rule amongst statisticians is to avoid comparing apples with oranges. But it seems that Danish statistician and climate change skeptic Bjorn Lomborg has no such reservations. In an opinion column, Lomborg rails against those who argue that sea levels will rise more than projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Most models, however, find results within the IPCC range of a sea-level increase of 18 to 59 centimeters this century. ... Studies claiming one meter or more, however, obviously make for better headlines," Lomborg writes. However, the IPCC report explicitly states (pdf - see page 23) that its estimate excludes "future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow," and assumes that the Greenland ice cap and Antarctica will melt at the rate observed from 1993 to 2003 -- important caveats Lomborg fails to mention. Assessments that include increased melting rates and other non-linear responses to higher temperatures do predict sea-level increases of one meter or more.

Mark Grundy, who works for the PR firm Edelman, sees business opportunities in climate change. He writes about the December 2009 COP15 meeting in Denmark, where world governments will try to negotiate a binding new agreement to follow the Kyoto Protocol, which ends in 2012. Grundy describes the COP15 meeting as "the biggest global opportunity for carbon messaging of the next four years... COP15 is a major opportunity for all my U.S. clients to go well beyond their European counterparts in the 'green image wars.'" After waxing lyrical about the "$100 billion commodity carbon market," Grundy concludes that if corporate executives still aren't persuaded that they should attend, they should ponder one point: "Where do you think every respected, environmental reporter on the planet will be between 30 November and 11 December next year?" As CMD previously reported, Edelman's London office is assisting E.ON UK in its efforts to persuade the UK government to approve the coal-fired Kingsnorth Power Station. The power station would emit several hundred million tonnes of carbon dioxide in its working life.

The Society for Environmental Journalists (SEJ), which promotes "excellence in environmental journalism," is gearing up for its annual conference in Roanoke, Virginia in mid-October. As the conference is in the "heart of coal country," numerous sessions will address "the status and future of big coal." Richard Pauli, who writes the NoEnergyTomorrow blog, notes that two of the conference's "premier sponsors” are the coal-addicted energy corporations American Electric Power and Dominion Power. "It's like seeing a Heart Association 10k race sponsored by a tobacco company," he wrote. In response, SEJ Executive Director Beth Parke stated that the corporate funding is for Virgina Tech, which will host the conference, and not directly for SEJ. Pauli noted SEJ's response, suggesting that "an improved analogy might be that of a track meet being held in a stadium that shows tobacco advertising. It may not be connected to the team, but they have to run below the sign."