Rhode Island Feeds

Desert solar farms divide environmentalists (LA Times).

Two key federal agencies urge rejection of a coal mine near a national park (Washington Post).

Beware, green projects may be a UN plot (NY Times).

Water has to be trucked in to some Texas towns (NY Times).

British politicians call for cutting wind turbine subsidies (BBC).

The groundhog may have said 6 more weeks of winter, but it doesn’t have quite the same meaning this year (LA Times).

High-speed rail faces an uncertain future in California (LA Times).

The Keystone XL pipeline is central to the GOP agenda (NY Times).

Cheap natural gas has been a blessing and a curse (Washington Post).

Three states will require insurers to disclose climate change plans (NY Times).

California fuel rule sparks controversy (Washington Post).

There is WRONG and there is RIGHT. And finally, we’re talking about it.

An op-ed penned in the Wall Street Journal last week denied climate change is happening. The authors cited a report (one that the report’s author has since said is an incorrect reading of the report) that they believe shows there is little chance of a negative effect from climate change. The cite this incorrect fact:

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.

Attacks such as this have become commonplace in the climate change discourse. And finally a group of scientists is fighting back – also publishing in the Wall Street Journal. First they attacked the scientists.

While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.

And then they overwhelmed them with facts.

Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean.

In a later piece one of the authors penned an aside dealing with the “hoax” theories straight on.

But what if there were a chance that there was no reason to restrict cumulative emissions of heat-trapping gasses? What if cumulative emissions of carbon were not limited? A paper on “hedging” that I publishedin Science in 2004 with Natasha Andronova and Michael Schlesinger (see Dot Earthfor a discussion and link) indicated that starting mitigation now would be the right choice even if our analysis included a significant chance that doing nothing would turn out to be (in 2035) the right choice — that is, even with a 20% chance that climate change would turn out to be a hoax. I think that the likelihood of that is close to zero, but so what?

It is good to see scientists fight back against the skeptics and hopefully it will allow the world to move forward with climate change solutions. Doing nothing is not an option.

Winter’s been in hibernation in most places (LA Times), including Yosemite Park.

Chinese air pollution is getting more attention (NY Times).

Microplastics threaten shorelines (BBC). Meanwhile, ocean debris wreaks havoc on an exquisite Mexican beach (LA Times).

The White House proposes more energy tax breaks (NY Times).

More and more parts of the oceans are being fished (BBC).

California strengthens auto emission rules (LA Times). Meanwhile, more retailers are installing electric vehicle charging stations.

BP will have to cover many of the spill claims made against the rig’s owner (Washington Post).

The word “fracking” is ungood, says the energy industry (Washington Post).

The UK releases a comprehensive climate change assessment (BBC).

The search for a nuclear waste storage site continues (NY Times).

The search for a UN climate accord shows signs of life (NY Times).

The guitar industry is splintered over a wood protection law (LA Times). Meanwhile, the administration finalizes new rules for national forests (Washington Post).

An electric car battery maker goes under, despite Obama administration backing (Washington Post).

The tropics may be reaching “peak timber” (BBC).

Just one mention of climate change during President Obama’s state of the union speech this week? Well, I suppose that’s one more than last year from a president who was elected with a promise to change our country’s stance on climate change.

There is no such audacity leading up to this year’s election and that was made clear during the speech. The president knows there is no chance of striking an agreement and he all but admitted defeat on the topic.

“The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change,” Obama said, according to prepared remarks. “But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven’t acted.”

Heck, some say the president does less than President Bush on the topic.

On average, Obama has mentioned the words environment, climate change and global warming only once in his state of the union speeches. Clinton had an average of six mentions, while the former oil man Bush –who famously used his 2006 speech to lament America’s addiction to oil– mentioned climate change and environment on average twice.

It’s clear where he personally stands on the topic – a stance he made sure to cement by denying the Keystone XL pipeline last week. But aside from using his executive powers to make such decrees or direct the EPA, he’s been unable to act in cooperation with Congress.

The EU will ban purchases of Iranian oil (BBC). Its impact is questionable (BBC).

Gen Y car buyers like hybrids with lots of technology (LA Times).

Heating oil prices are crippling the Northeast (NY Times).

Environmentalists say the UK’s nuclear power subsidies are unlawful (BBC).

ConEd begins a $2.6 billion smart grid (NY Times).

An investigation finds that the Chevy Volt is safe (Washington Post).

Space junk is a growing problem (LA Times).

The Keystone XL pipeline is dead for now (Washington Post). Still, totally stopping the pipeline is unlikely (LA Times), as the fight is sure to heat up (Washington Post, BBC).

A judge blocks Vermont from shutting down the Vermont Yankee plant (NY Times).

The proposed new fuel economy standards have drawn widespread support (NY Times).

Climate change skepticism enters classrooms (LA Times).

A team of researchers proposed more practical and immediate climate solutions (NY Times).

Save water – keep a pitcher of tap water in your refrigerator.

There is no core religious belief behind the latest attack on science as there was with evolution; it is simply a political ideology that has spread into the classrooms and forced science teachers to become wary of teaching climate change.

Luckily, a group of science educators is stepping in to help fight this disturbing trend. One school textbook author has seen it firsthand:

“The reason I started talking to Genie and others about this issue several years ago, is that, during my frequent opportunities to address teachers about climate science, I have repeatedly run into fear, denial, even focused political accusations.”

The Republican agenda of the past few years has been to do everything possible to deny climate change as a manmade problem. Whether it was through the “Climategate” emails, which were later proven to be much ado about nothing, or plans to scrap the EPA, the science behind the theory that humans cause climate change has been drowned out not by conflicting science but rather a rapidly growing chorus of people who say “no.” They have few hard facts to back up their theory, but they yell “no” as loud as possible and disguise that as a hypothesis.

They yell “no” to the scientific facts. They yell “no” to cutting pollution. They yell “no” to fighting for cleaner air or cleaner water. They yell “no” to funding companies that could create energy that doesn’t produce as many greenhouse gases. They yell “no” to science itself.

And that “no” seems to be seeping into the classroom, into what students are taught.

If the climate change deniers had to write a paper or create a science project on what’s behind their theory, they would fail. When all the evidence on both sides of the climate change debate is gathered together, the only sane hypothesis to come up with is that humans have caused it and are making it worse. If someone reached a different hypothesis off that data, they would flunk the project. So, let’s flunk the climate change deniers – and kick them out of schools.

Lobbying on the Keystone XL pipeline steps up (Washington Post).

Worry rises over Iran and oil prices (Washington Post).

California attempts to slay vampire charging systems (LA Times).

Texans will soon learn what goes into hydrofracking (NY Times).

Deforestation reveals a lost world in the Amazon (NY Times).

High CO2 emissions are enough to defer an ice age (BBC).

Louisiana announces a $50 billion plan to save the coast (Washington Post).

A map of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters is now available (NY Times).

Recycled wastewater should be used more often, a report says (LA Times)

Renewable energy projects in California go unused (LA Times).

In case you needed someone actually moving a doomsday clock forward on the urgency of climate change – it’s happened. We’re now “Five minutes till midnight” on Doomsday. It’s a message that forces us to consider action to halt climate change now. But if a clock wasn’t enough, a simple look around the news should force your hand.

The Northeast is scared that this snowless Northeast winter (except for the weekend before Halloween?!?) could cause a drought for the region, exposing the area to the same struggles much of the South deals with on an annual basis.

Elsewhere, more evidence of ecological change occurs when you look at how elk are using the warmer temperatures to ravage the plant and animal system around them.

They showed that over the last 22 years in the mountains of Arizona the abundance of deciduous trees and their associated songbirds have declined as the winter snowpack has declined. However, they also experimentally showed that declining snowfall indirectly affects plants and birds by allowing more winter browsing by the elk.

Somebody has noticed – as investors are managing trillions of dollars with the climate change report in mind. If only the people in power to halt climate change moved as quickly.

The EPA says toxic releases rose 16% in 2010 (Washington Post).

One coal-fired plant wants new emission rules (NY Times).

Africa’s rainforests are more resilient than others (BBC).

Companies seek ways to store solar energy (NY Times).

South Asia’s smog is getting worse (BBC).

A water dispute pits Vegas against the rest of the state (Stateline).

Brazil pushes forward with deepwater drilling (LA Times). Exxon reaches a deal to develop a discovery in the Gulf (Washington Post).

An upcoming Supreme Court case has significant implications for EPA enforcement actions (LA Times).

A few threatening words from Iran are all it takes for oil prices to spike (Washington Post). Actually following through would send them through the roof (NY Times).

Environmentalists battle against sea walls (LA Times).

The ethanol tax credit is now gone (NY Times).

Chinese airlines refuse to pay the EU’s carbon tax (BBC).

GM wants Volt owners to bring their vehicles in for battery repairs (Washington Post).

An Ecuador court affirms an $18.2 billion judgment against Chevron (BBC).

After the first delegates from the Republican party were assigned last night, it’s time to take another look at the climate change views of the candidates jockeying to be the Republican nominee for president.

Front-runner Mitt Romney has had an up-and-down stance on climate change, which makes you wonder how he truly feels. As governor of Massachusetts he had a fairly strong record for a Republican on the environment. And until a few months ago, he agreed with the science but been hesitant on government’s role in intervening to stop it. In the past few months, however, he has turned to denying climate change.

He reversed his position on government support for renewable energy industries. He lambasted the Obama admin for supporting clean-car companies. He attacked the notion of green jobs, ignoring the 64,000 that have been created in his home state of Massachusetts. He dissed the Chevy Volt.

While belittling clean energy and cleantech, Romney has demonstrated his fealty to Big Oil, Big Coal, et al. He wants to maintain massive tax breaks for the oil industry. He backs plans for the Keystone XL pipeline. He joins fossil-fuel industries in opposing EPA’s efforts to reduce mercury, arsenic, lead, and smog pollution from power plants, cement manufacturers, and large industrial boilers.

As for Rick Santorum, he’s been consistent from the beginning. He’s in love with coal so much he might’ve even given it to his kids for Christmas.

Giving his view on climate science to Rush Limbaugh he said: “I believe the earth gets warmer and I also believe the earth gets cooler, and I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man, through the production of CO2 — which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the manmade part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas — is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd.”

Jon Huntsman is the only candidate with a good record on the environment yet he remains a longshot. There’s a clear difference between the two remaining contenders for the GOP nomination, but neither choice seems very appealing.

Coal has been a vexing challenge for the Obama administration (Washington Post).

India makes gains in solar power (NY Times). A hydroelectric dam proceeds in China (NY Times).

A drilling fight gets nasty in Louisiana (NY Times).

The EPA has had inconsistent oversight of state agencies (Stateline).

Happy New Year everyone.

Year after year, you make a New Year’s resolution – it often doesn’t work and maybe you’ve resolved not to do it anymore. Give it one more shot this year – make your resolution taking the 11-1 Lights Out, Green In pledge.

There is more than enough light on sunny days to work with the lights off in most companies or houses – so do it. You won’t be fumbling about in darkness. You won’t be turning your back on technology. You’ll be adapting to the threat of climate change and sending us on a path to cleaner air and less pollution. So make this year’s New Year’s resolution a little bit about you (you’ll save money) and a lot about the coming generations. Join the more than 500 households and companies combined who have taken the pledge.

The EPA’s proposed new mercury rule isn’t sitting well with industry (LA Times). It could close some of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest plants (Washington Post).

The US continues to oppose the EU’s airline emissions tax (BBC), recently ruled legal by Europe’s high court (Washington post).

Brazil seeks charges against Chevron employees after last month’s spill (BBC). But a new Amazon development policy has environmentalists worried (Washington Post).

Seattle bans plastic bags, and hopes it stands this time (NY Times).

During the past few years, Lights Out, Green In has featured a series of blog posts that remain “evergreen,” which means they are still relevant. Here are a few to check out:

Is a fake Christmas tree or a real one better for the environment?

Are using LEDs (now available in the favored warm white color) helping lessen the environmental impact of Christmas? Will they act as a gateway for consumers to experiment with new energy-saving lighting?

And don’t forget – Bill O’Reilly’s misplaced rant on the War on Christmas helped spark Lights Out, Green In’s creation.

What are some ways you save energy at Christmas? Leave a comment below …