The Brazilian government says that a preliminary survey by a low-resolution satellite shows that deforestation in the Amazon declined by 47.5% over the past 12 months. The figure is the largest decline since measurements began in 1988 and, if confirmed by data from a second set of satellites due out later this year, would amount to nearly a 90% drop in lost forest area since a 2004 peak.

“I think the results are pretty strong for a big additional decrease in deforestation,” says Greg Asner, a satellite expert with the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University. “I am really pleased to see it. I do not doubt that the trend is real.”

Deforestation harms biodiversity and also adds mightily to climate change. It’s nice to have some good news for a change!

To date, the ballot initiative has been financed largely by other out-of-state oil companies including Valero and Tesoro, as well as the Missouri-based Adam Smith Foundation.

According to the Los Angeles Times, 97% of the funding for Proposition 23 is from oil interests; 89% of the funding comes from outside the state.  It’s not a surprise to me that our in-state businesses haven’t backed the initiative. Many businesspeople here in California believe our economic future depends on greentech business growth, including alternative energy infrastructure and energy efficiency technology and services.

These are the two new label proposals for new cars.

New labels proposed by the federal government would give new cars letter grades reflecting their fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions.  Electric cars and plug-in hybrids are expected to get the highest grades.  The rule isn’t final yet; the public can comment and make suggestions on the label design.

Most of us are familiar with the fuel economy labels that our federal government requires for all new cars.  These labels estimate the miles a car owner can expect to drive per gallon of gasoline, under idealized conditions.  While the labels’ information is far from perfect, the information does allow consumers to make more informed choices about auto purchases than they would otherwise be able to make.  Earlier this week, EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced their proposal for new fuel economy labels for cars starting in model year 2012.

Autoblog.com has developed projections of how the new labeling system would grade cars currently on the road.   For comparison, CNN Money evaluates the current label  and how useful the new labels would be for consumers.

The major criticism I’ve heard of the proposed standards, discussed in the CNN Money article, is that the letter grades will skew consumers’ perceptions by making fuel economy more available and salient than all other factors, including safety, reliability, and performance. I haven’t thought this through, but given that the agencies have a specific legislative mandate to make fuel economy information available to consumers through labels, I don’t think that making these labels more evaluative or robust troubles me at all.  If Congress wants labels on cars that reflect these other factors, it’s free to require that other labeling, after all.

From lomborg.com

Bjorn Lomborg (a/k/a the “Skeptical Environmentalist”) has apparently had a change of heart regarding climate change.  According to the Guardian:

The world’s most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today” and “a challenge humanity must confront”, in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.

Bjørn Lomborg, the self-styled “sceptical environmentalist” once compared to Adolf Hitler by the UN’s climate chief, is famous for attacking climate scientists, campaigners, the media and others for exaggerating the rate of global warming and its effects on humans, and the costly waste of policies to stop the problem.

But in a new book to be published next month, Lomborg will call for tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change. “Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century,” the book concludes.

Lomberg wants to use raise money from an emissions tax to finance a massive research effort as well as climate adaptation.  It’s good to see someone who is actually open to considering the evidence.

El Nino

From dot.earth:

Federal researchers have published work concluding that a particular variant of the periodic El Niño warmups of the tropical Pacific Ocean is becoming more frequent and stronger. The pattern appears to fit what is expected from human-driven warming of the global climate, said the researchers . . .

The 2009-2010 El Nino event was the strongest on record. The researchers also said that the trend did not fit with the record of natural variability in the Pacific.

In no particular order:

AB 1011 would provide tax credits for insurers that invest in certain types of “green” technology, including energy efficiency projects.

SB 722 would expand our state Renewable Portfolio Standard dramatically.

AB 1581 and SB 1456 would amend the California Environmental Quality Act.  AB 1581 would exempt certain big-box retail store alterations from the law’s requirements, while SB 1456 would create a mediation requirement and would add a rather strange provision that allows parties to seek sanctions for frivolous CEQA claims (something they are already allowed to do, and the bill doesn’t appear to change the law substantively).

AB 1998 would ban plastic bags from many California stores, and would limit the content of paper bags based on recycled content.  (There is a breaking story involving campaign contributions from the bill’s opponents in the chemical industry.)

SB 797, which would ban Bisphenol-A in products for children, appears to be in bad shape.

AB 2514, sponsored by Attorney General Jerry Brown, would increase energy storage by utilities.

AB 2503 would establish the framework for a “rigs to reefs” program, potentially allowing oil and gas platforms to be decommissioned without completely removing the platform structures.

And AB 1552, just withdrawn, would have let up on new rules that limit the way power plants can use ocean water for cooling.

In no particular order:

AB 1011 would provide tax credits for insurers that invest in certain types of “green” technology, including energy efficiency projects.

SB 722 would expand our state Renewable Portfolio Standard dramatically.

AB 1581 and SB 1456 would amend the California Environmental Quality Act.  AB 1581 would exempt certain big-box retail store alterations from the law’s requirements, while SB 1456 would create a mediation requirement and would add a rather strange provision that allows parties to seek sanctions for frivolous CEQA claims (something they are already allowed to do, and the bill doesn’t appear to change the law substantively).

AB 1998 would ban plastic bags from many California stores, and would limit the content of paper bags based on recycled content.  (There is a breaking story involving campaign contributions from the bill’s opponents in the chemical industry.)

SB 797, which would ban Bisphenol-A in products for children, appears to be in bad shape.

AB 2514, sponsored by Attorney General Jerry Brown, would increase energy storage by utilities.

AB 2503 would establish the framework for a “rigs to reefs” program, potentially allowing oil and gas platforms to be decommissioned without completely removing the platform structures.

And AB 1552, just withdrawn, would have let up on new rules that limit the way power plants can use ocean water for cooling.

It does this by arguing that the state attorneys general do not have prudential standing to bring this suit.  Now, you might say, “wait a minute!  Didn’t the Supreme Court already decide, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that states have standing to bring these claims?”  Patience, grasshopper: Mass. v. EPA decided Article III, or constitutional standing.  It declared that states could sue the EPA because such a suit would constitute a “case or controversy” under Article III of the Constitution.

The SG couldn’t very well argue in its brief that the states don’t have constitutional standing, because Mass. v. EPA already foreclosed that.  So it said in effect, “Yes, the Constitution gives them a right to plead their case but it’s a bad idea on policy grounds.”  In other words, it is asking the Court to create another procedural hoop for the states to jump through.

If one was being cynical, one could argue that the SG is asking the Court to overrule Massachusetts v. EPA sub silentio.  In the future, if the SG gets its way, states’ lawsuits against carbon emitters will get kicked on prudential grounds, so it doesn’t matter whether there is Article III standing or not.  Now, the SG’s brief is careful to argue against prudential standing on the basis that so many lawsuits would prevent the formation and application of centralized policy, so theoretically lawsuits against EPA itself could still go forward.  So more accurately, the SG is arguing that Massachusetts v. EPA should be held to its facts.

But if you then look at the substantive side of the SG’s brief, it is arguing that federal common law is displaced due to some positive, but really quite minimal actions that EPA has taken since the Second Circuit delivered its opinion: regulations on light-duty trucks, the endangerment finding, the New Source Review regulations — all of which themselves are or will be under legal attack.  In any event, the SG’s brief sets up a world in which the EPA can do little or nothing about climate change — and no one can challenge them about it because any action, no matter how minimal, will displace common law.

A friend of mine suggested that this is really just about power: the Administration doesn’t want anyone getting in its way, and that includes the states.  Maybe, but then it is going to get a lot of utilities in its way.  That’s a pretty bad deal.

Or maybe it’s just easier to follow the money: it will be interesting to see the campaign contribution reports from utilities over the next three months.

The Obama administration has urged the Supreme Court to toss out an appeals court decision that would allow lawsuits against major emitters for their contributions to global warming, stunning environmentalists who see the case as a powerful prod on climate change.

Read the whole thing.  It’s hard for me to tell whether this is craven or stupid.  Note that the SG didn’t have to take a position on this case.  This represents the administration going above and beyond the call of duty to undermine the chances of a sensible energy policy.  Yes, a comprehensive statute would be better.  And you know what?  It ain’t going to happen.

What about just allowing the EPA regulatory process to go forward?  The 2nd Circuit allows that.  In fact, it helps that process by saying that it cannot rule on the displacement question until EPA climate change regulations are final.  So if the utilities sue over those regulations, and hold them up in court, then they have to face the consequences of the common-law claim.  In other words, the SG’s brief represents an invitation for the polluters to sue EPA.

Will this matter?  It could; for the SG to step in and take a position on the case that it did not need to sends a signal to the Supremes that this is important.

What next?  Bernie Madoff as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency?

The Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency decision had to be based solely on a factual determination of whether greenhouse gases do or do not endanger human health or welfare.  So questions about whether the Clean Air Act is a good vehicle for addressing climate change are simply irrelevant apart from the very unlikely possibility that the Supreme Court would hear the case and change its mind.  This could only happen if one of Obama’s appointees voted to overruled Mass. v. EPA or if Justice Kennedy changed his mind — and he’s not someone who likes to admit to making mistakes.

To decide whether “endangerment” exists, EPA had to consider some legal questions:  Does harm to people outside the U.S. count?  Are harmful impacts offset by favorable ones?  EPA’s interpretation of the law will be upheld so long as a court thinks it’s reasonable, even if the court would have preferred another interpretation.  In any event, EPA protected itself by giving a detailed analysis of why harm to people in the United States would be considered endangerment even if we considered possible offsetting benefits.

That leaves purely scientific challenges.  Here, EPA is on the strongest ground.  Its scientific  conclusions can be overturned only if they are “arbitrary or capricious.”  EPA in this case was acting on the basis of a strong scientific consensus, and its explained its scientific conclusions in massive detail.  It would take a very foolhardy judge to find this analysis arbitrary and capricious.

It’s impossible ever to be completely certain about future human actions.  It’s possible, for example, that despite the current polls, the Democrats will sweep the Fall elections and gain five or ten seats in both houses of Congress.  It’s also possible that the challenges to the endangerment finding will succeed.  But both outcomes are highly unlikely.

To me, it seems that the answer is obvious.  The Obama Administration wants comprehensive climate change legislation, the chances of which are profoundly smaller this session than a snowball in hell.  If the Second Circuit’s decision allowing the suit to go forward is either upheld by the Supremes or (more likely) the high court doesn’t grant cert, then the only way to get rid of the suit is for Congress to displace it.  And the only way for Congress to displace it is to pass legislation.  As is the case with EPA authority to regulate carbon, this puts more bargaining power on the side that wants regulation.

Put another way, if the Obama Administration decides to enter the suit on behalf of the utilities, it would put the lie to its desire to get climate legislation.  It will be interesting to see what the Justice Department does; I would hope that Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal would file a brief with the Court recommending against cert.  At the very least, TVA should drop out of the suit.

The Russian heat wave is a case in point.  As the Economist explains:

According to Geert Jan van Oldenborgh of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, a straightforward comparison of the temperatures seen in European Russia this summer with those of the past 60 years suggests that a lot of the country is experiencing temperatures which might be expected only once every 400 years or so. For parts of the patch, it is hotter than might be expected over several millennia.

If you take into account the warming trend of the past half century, however, the extraordinary heatwave starts to look less improbable: a once-in-a-century event, perhaps. As the warming trend continues in future, the chances of such events being repeated yet more frequently will become higher still.

As Ann Carlson pointed out in an earlier posting, we can expect more of these extreme events, and we can expect to break records by bigger margins as climate change continues.   How many heat waves can we have before we all recognize the reality of climate change? The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind.

1)  You assume that there is at least a 50/50 chance of climate change occurring.  That is a highly conservative assumption — except for climate skeptics.  Most climate skeptics are not unpersuaded by the science based upon scientific reasoning: they believe that climate change is hoax being perpetrated by a liberal cabal.  So at best, they would put the possibility of climate change occurring at 10/90.

2) Your model relies upon climate change making the drought more likely.  I’m actually not persuaded that this necessarily would be true, although I accept your reasoning in general.  In many areas, even according to widely-accepted scientific models, some areas of the earth — for example, the Indian monsoon-affected areas — will become wetter, not dryer.  That’s not true of Vegas, of course.  But more to the point here — again, climate skeptics reject the prevailing scientific models as not just imprecise or inaccurate, but fraudulent.

Recall what you have to believe in order to be a climate skeptic.  You have to reject the broad and deep consensus of the global scientific community, a consensus so broad and so deep that virtually NO climate scientist disbelieves it.  If you’re going to reject that, it’s easy to reject all other assumptions.

Your basic problem, Dan, is that you are a reasonable and thoughtful person, who is trying to persuade people based upon reason.  That’s not really what’s going on here.  It reminds me of an incisive analogy developed by John Cole of the blog Balloon-Juice.  Cole used to be a conservative Republican, and left because of the Right’s rejection of scientific data.  Early in the Obama Administration, when inside the Beltway pundits were all talking about “bipartisanship,” he commented:

I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.

The record over the last year and a half has overwhelmingly confirmed Cole’s argument.

In my view, this contains a tactical takeaway point: don’t try to persuade the climate skeptics.  Try to persuade those who don’t have well-formed views.  Maybe that’s a better way to frame what you’re doing in your post.  Dan, no matter how much you try to convince Rush Limbaugh of the reasonableness of your position, he ain’t interested.  He’ll still call you a pinko Commie quiche-eating socialist who wants to rob us of our Precious Bodily Fluids.  And not only because you live in Berkeley.

For Las Vegas, which draws 90 percent of its water supply from the lake, the worst-case scenario would occur if the surface drops below the lower of the city’s two intakes to 1,000 feet, cutting off the supply.

The prospect has the Southern Nevada Water Authority pursuing the permits necessary to build a $3.5 billion, 300-mile pipeline to shuttle water from an alternative source in northern Nevada.

Work is already under way on a $700 million project to connect a third intake that would run up through the bottom of the lake, enabling it to be sucked dry. It has been a difficult feat: Last month, construction was halted when workers hit a seam that flooded the excavated cavern. Nobody was injured, although the flood trapped several large pieces of construction equipment underwater.

Scientists and Reclamation officials agree: Las Vegas will not be running dry anytime soon. But that means the spigot on Lake Mead will likely be tightened in the coming years, probably far more than the 2007 agreement calls for.

Some scientists attribute the drought to climate change. How should we think about this causation issue?

This  provides a nice setting to try out Bayesian analysis.   Suppose that there’s a 50/50 chance that climate change is happening; a 10% chance of the drought without climate change; and a 20% chance with climate change. Over two hundred years ago, the Reverend Thomas Bayes provided a formula for combining this information, but I always find it easier just to think in terms of running multiple experiments.

Suppose we had 100 planet earths, half with climate change and half without.  In the 50 without climate change, we’d expect this drought to happen 10% of the time, or 5 times.  In the other 50, there’s a 20% chance, making 10 times.  So out of the 100 total, there would be 15 experiencing the drought, with 10 of them being from worlds with climate change and 5 from the other worlds.  Hence, given that a drought has taken place, the odds are 2:1 that it was caused by climate change.  And to put it another way, we could update our odds that climate change is happening from 1:1 to 2:1.

In general, the occurrence of the drought should make the skeptic less skeptical unless the skeptic is 100% certain that climate change does not exist.  Frankly, it’s difficult to see how a sane person could be that certain that a majority of the world’s scientists are wrong, so any sane climate skeptic would have to accept the drought as evidence against climate change, provided that the drought is more likely given climate change than without it.

Suppose that we’re climate skeptics, and we think the odds against climate change are 2:1.  Given the same 10% versus 5% numbers as the last example, we now have 67 non-climate change worlds  producing 6.7 cases of drought, and 33 climate change worlds producing 6.6 cases of drought.  So the climate skeptic would say that the odds are now approximately even that the drought was produced by climate change (and that climate change is happening).

The 10% and 20% figures are just made up numbers — what matters for this example is not how big they are but how they compare.  The moral is that, so long as the drought would be more likely with climate change than without, its occurrence increases the odds in favor of the reality of climate change.  So far as I can tell, no one is arguing that climate change would make the drought less likely, so the assumption seems to be sound.  And if this assumption holds, and if we think that climate change is at least a fifty-fifty bet in the first place, we can also conclude that the occurrence of the drought is more likely than not due to climate change.

But let’s do a quick cost-benefit analysis here.  I have argued elsewhere that we could save far more women from repression, violence, and brutality by taking all the money and effort we are currently using in Afghanistan, and fighting the sex trade, forced prostitution, slavery (still victimizing 27 million people worldwide), and the degradation of extreme poverty — and not get thousands of US soliders killed in the process.

Now let’s push on the environmental angle.  Climate skeptics and foot-draggers argue that carbon regulation is just too expensive for us.  But it will be less expensive than a protracted, bloody, unwinnable war in Afghanistan — which most of them support.  So what’s the difference?

I suppose that one could argue that the difference is that in Afghanistan, you have a group of genuinely evil people oppressing women (and just about everyone else).  Climate change, on the other hand, is just “happening.”  And I suppose that’s true in some sense.

But is it important enough?  To use Model Penal Code terms, the Taliban are acting “purposefully” to oppress people, and by not doing something about it, we are acting “knowingly.”  With climate change, we are acting knowingly to destroy the planet, and acting knowingly (or at least recklessly) by refusing to do something about it.  (The “refraining” from doing something about climate change is a case of “pseudo-nonfeasance” because we created the risk in the first place; it is similar to a driver “refraining” from applying her brakes at the right time.). 

Note also that those who stand to be harmed most viciously by climate change are also the world’s most impoverished and oppressed people.  Jared Diamond argues in Guns, Germs, and Steel that the Rwandan genocide was caused in large measure by an ecological crisis: it is highly probable that climate impacts will also yield violence, ethnic conflict, and genocide, and the world’s poorest will once again be the victims.

Is the difference between knowingly refraining from action to stop brutal oppressors so much worse than continuing to knowingly destroy the planet and injure the world’s most vulnerable populations (not to mention future generations)?  It doesn’t seem so to me.  It seems quite strange to make such a sharp distinction.  Nevertheless, a large potion of the US policymaking elite confidently states that it is “necessary” to do something about the Taliban (even though the geopolitical case is far from being shown) yet it is “too expensive” to do something about climate.  The burden on them is to show why their clear, sharp distinction holds any water.