Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming
Amy Goodman, Democracy Now
Dr. James Hansen is widely regarded as the leading climate change scientist in the country. For the past twenty-five years, he has headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Just over a year ago, Dr. Hansen went public with a charge that made headlines around the world-that the Bush administration had been trying to silence his warnings about the urgent need to address climate change. Dr. Hansen joins us in our firehouse studio. His story is detailed in a new book by author Mark Bowen titled Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming.
… could you talk about how the Clinton administration reacted to some of the warnings you raised?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, my concern is general with both Republican and Democratic administrations. They both feel that they can control what scientists say to the public. So their offices of public affairs in the science agencies are headed, in general, by political appointees, and they review the press releases before they go out. So, it doesn’t really make sense in a democracy. The public should be honestly informed. And then, of course, the publications are allowed to make the decisions, and they don’t have to follow exactly what the science says. There are other considerations that they have. But they shouldn’t influence what is presented, the scientific evidence. And I object to that, regardless of which administration is in power.
… First of all, explain your place of work and the significance of NASA Goddard.
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, NASA is important, I think, because of the global observations that we make from satellites. We see what’s happening, for example, on Greenland and then West Antarctica. My laboratory is also involved in the global models that try to interpret what’s happening. And we’re also located at Columbia University, where we have the opportunity to work with people who have the data from the history of the earth over thousands and millions of years. You put together these different things-the satellite information, the information on how the earth responded in the past when greenhouse gases changed and other things changed, and the models-and then you get a picture of how the system works.
And that’s what really concerns me, because it’s the inertia of the system which tells us we’re already pushing it, so that it’s going to respond more over the next several decades. There’s a lot more climate response which is already in the pipeline, that we haven’t seen it yet, and that’s why we have to have an understanding of what’s happening, so we can take the actions now before it’s too late.
…. what do you see as some of the key things that our government, as well as other governments around the world, need to do?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, the most important thing is-if you just look at how much carbon dioxide there is in the different fossil fuels, coal is the really big issue. The important step is to have a moratorium on any new coal-fired power plants until we have the technology to capture the carbon dioxide and sequester it. And if we would do that, that’s a good fraction of the solution. But we’re also going to have to use the other fossil fuels more conservatively. We’re going to need to emphasize energy efficiency. And eventually we have to find sources of energy that don’t produce greenhouse gases.
… DR. JAMES HANSEN: … we’re going to hit peak oil very soon, if we haven’t already.
AMY GOODMAN: Which means?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Which means that we have used half of the oil that’s readily available. And so, the amount-the emissions from oil are going to start to decline just because the supply of oil is limited. So that’s why coal becomes the issue. Now we’re starting to use more and more coal, and we just can’t do that unless we have the technology to capture the CO2.
AMY GOODMAN: How dire is the situation right now?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: It’s becoming dire, because we have to start within the next few years on a track-on a different track. We have to realize that we have to get to energy sources beyond fossil fuels, and we need to do that sooner. The fossil fuel companies want you to believe that, well, let’s use up all the fossil fuels, and then we’ll worry about what we’re going to do after that. Unfortunately, we can’t do that unless we capture the carbon dioxide.
(21 March 2008)
We Need a New Bargain With Big Oil
Joseph P. Kennedy II, Wall Street Journal (opinion)
During the OPEC oil embargo over 30 years ago, the price of crude rocketed to historic highs in the world market while the controlled domestic price hovered below $4 a barrel. A few years later, the oil industry and the U.S. government reached a bipartisan deal: Domestic oil prices would be allowed to float in exchange for a windfall-profits tax, with 25% of the bounty earmarked to help the poorest Americans who depended on hydrocarbons to keep warm. At the heart of the pact was the recognition that no one had a right to charge whatever they wanted for a commodity that America couldn’t live without.
… Three decades later, we have reached another extraordinary moment. With crude oil prices tripling over the last five years — breaking through the $100-a-barrel mark in recent months — the top 10 domestic producers have generated an eye-popping $818 billion in pretax profits over the same period. In 2007 alone, the top 10 petro-giants operating in the U.S. generated $1.4 trillion in revenues and more than $200 billion in pretax profits. ExxonMobil is recognized as the most profitable company in the history of global commerce; its 2007 profits of $40.6 billion eclipsed its own 2006 record net income of $39.5 billion.
Meanwhile, extraction costs are still $15 to $20 a barrel and demand for U.S. petroleum products is approaching 21 million barrels a day. The industry has harvested profits it didn’t sow — they’ve come primarily as a result of price runups, not innovation or efficiencies.
The surge in value has made oil executives and shareholders extremely happy, but at what price for Americans?
… What we need now is a clear-eyed acknowledgement that, even as we move toward a post-petroleum economy, we still need oil. Investment in developing new oil sources is increasing, but not nearly as fast as compensation to shareholders, up a whopping 700% between 1996 and 2006 for the top seven domestic producers.
Reasonable trade-offs are possible. Political leaders need to make strategic concessions on domestic exploration or be willing to encourage multinational oil companies to develop supplies abroad, where production costs are much cheaper.
But concessions on expanded exploration and production must be linked to a commensurate industry investment in renewable energy and carbon sequestration.
(22 March 2008)
Slump Moves From Wall St. to Main St.
Peter S. Goodman, New York Times
With Wall Street caught in a credit crisis that has captured headlines, the forces assailing the economy are now spreading beyond areas hit hardest by the boom-turned-bust in real estate like California, Florida and Nevada. Now, the downturn is seeping into new parts of the country, to communities that seemed insulated only months ago.
The broadening of the slowdown, the plunge in home prices and near-paralysis in the financial system are fueling worries that what most economists now see as an inevitable recession could end up being especially painful.
Indeed, some economists fear it will last longer and inflict more bite on workers and businesses than the last two recessions, which gripped the economy in 2001 and for eight months straddling 1990 and 1991. This time, these experts say, a recession in which economic activity falls over a sustained period and joblessness rises across the board could even persist into next year.
(21 March 2008)
Fmr. House Science Cmte. Chairman Discusses Market-Based Climate Solutions
Scott Nance, Energy Policy TV
Sherwood Boehlert, former Chairman of the House Science Committee, is interviewed on his current activities to promote market-oriented solutions to global warming, the opportunity for “green collar” jobs and he evaluates climate legislation on the Hill.
(19 March 2008)
Former Congressman Boehlert is one of the best Republicans on climate and the environment. -BA
U.S. `Wide Open’ to Another Crippling Power Blackout – Veteran Utility Analyst Scotto
Energy Tech Stocks
With reserve margins the lowest they’ve been in at least 40 years, and reliability problems being allowed to fester, the United States is “wide open” to a crippling power blackout, according to veteran electric utility and energy analyst Daniel Scotto.
A blackout lasting several days and affecting millions of people “could occur anywhere in the U.S.” this summer, Scotto said.
In the five years since the last major blackout wreaked havoc on the U.S., very little has been done to correct the underlying problems, Scotto told EnergyTechStocks.com in an interview. “People believe electricity will just be there when they need it,” Scotto said. “But we have undermined the reliability of the whole network. We are on thinner ice than we imagine.”
Scotto, who is president of Whitehall Financial Advisors LLC in Greenwich, CT, recalled that 40 years ago it was customary for utilities to operate with a 20% reserve margin. (A reserve margin is the amount of unused generating capacity available to be used during periods of peak demand.) That figure fell to 15% to 18% in the 1970s and stayed there for decades, but now has been allowed to fall to just 12% nationally, with parts of the east and Midwest operating at below 10%. At the same time, the reliability of transmission lines “is an issue that hasn’t really been addressed” since line problems in 2003 caused a widespread blackout, Scotto noted.
(24 March 2008)
