Fracking the Future DeSmogBlog

Media Centre. Media Resources

 

“An imperative read for a successful future.”
~LEONARDO DICAPRIO

 

Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science

Desmog Video

Media Centre

Welcome to the DeSmogBlog Media Centre. If you’re looking for information on noted climate change skeptics, or on the use of PR techniques and spin by politicians, scientists, and in the media, you’ve come to the right place.

Since we launched the site in January 2006, we’ve compiled an extensive collection of resources. Please use this media centre to full advantage for your own reporting.

Should you want more information on a particular issue, skeptic or group, and cannot find it here, please feel free to contact us at brendan [at] desmogblog [dot] com.

As always, we’re always happy to receive tips from our readers. Please submit those to editor [at] desmogblog [dot] com. Spin is everywhere, and it’s clouding climate science and confusing the public. Help us in our mission for sound reporting on climate science. After all, you can’t spin Mother Nature.


About DeSmogBlog
DeSmogBlog exists to clear the PR pollution that is clouding the science on climate change. An overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists agree that the globe is warming and that the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels is to blame. We know that the risks are incalculable and, increasingly, we understand that the solutions are affordable and wise choices for many reasons.


DeSmog Research Database
A database of individuals, “think” tanks, PR pros and corporations actively involved in clouding the science on climate change.


Resources and links to climate science websites

The Scientific Consensus
Here is a review by Science magazine that looked at 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change.” Not one of these studies disagreed with consensus view on climate change.

G8 Climate Statement (PDF)
Here is a 2005 joint declaration on the realities of global warming signed by the heads of the chief scientific advisors for all the G8 countries (China, Canada, Brazil, Russia, United States, Japan, Italy, India, Germany).

IPCC: The Scientific Basis
Here is the latest report issued by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – supported by the world’s leading climatologists.

The Royal Society – A guide to facts and fictions about climate change (PDF)
“This document examines twelve misleading arguments (presented in bold typeface) put forward by the pponents of urgent action on climate change and highlights the scientific evidence that exposes their flaws. … This document has been endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society, and draws primarily on scientific papers published in leading peer-reviewed journals and the work of authoritative scientific organisations, such as the IPCC and the United States National Academy of Sciences.”

RealClimate.org
This is a climate change website run by leading climate change scientists. Here you will find out about the latest climate science, as well as information on the scientific myths on climate change.

The Scientific Case for Human-Induced Global Warming
Here is an article written by renowned author, and DeSmog contributor, Ross Gelbspan, that summarizes the scientific evidence on man-made climate change.

Climate Backgrounder
Here is a backgrounder on climate change written by DeSmogBlog writer Richard Littlemore.

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Country (also check here )

NationMaster GHG and Environment Statistics

Calculate your household’s carbon emissions

Helpful resources for researching the backgrounds of climate change “skeptics” and PR professionals

Exxon Secrets
Run by Greenpeace USA, ExxonSecrets exposes the campaign ExxonMobil has run for more than a decade to fund climate change skeptics and delay action to fix the problem.

PR Watch
Run by the Center for Media and Democracy, this site offers information on PR professionals in all sectors, including the fossil fuel industry and climate change. The CMD is run by John Stauber, author of 5 books on the PR industry, including Toxic Sludge is Good for You and Trust Us, We’re Experts.

Media Matters: Conservative Transparency
Run by Media Matters for America, this website reports the funding received by conservative US “think” tanks.

US Senate Lobby Filing Disclosure Program
A searchable database containing all US lobbyists, who they work for and the policies they are lobbying to change.

Government of Canada Lobbyist Registration
A searchable database containing all Canadian lobbyists, who they work for and the policies they are lobbying to change.

The Legacy Tobacco Documents
This site contains the entire library of documents relating to the Master Settlement Agreement between the US and the tobacco industry. In this searchable database you will find that many of the self-proclaimed climate change “skeptics” were also involved in confusing the public about the harmful effects of cigarette smoke.

DNS Stuff
Type in any website address in the “WHOIS” Lookup and see who really owns a website. We are constantly amazed at the information we find using this site.

Open Secrets
Check out this site for detailed information and analysis of industry donations to US politicians.

Dirty Energy Money
Run by Oil Change International, this site tracks the oil, gas and coal industry money flowing into the U.S. Congress.

Government of Canada Corporate Registry
Find out the who’s who of a corporation or a non-profit registered under Canada’s corporate registry act. For example, we found that the founding directors of a non-profit called The Natural Resource Stewardship Project were also lobbyists for the energy industry.


News Tips and Confidential Information
Have some interesting news stories, or some information that you feel needs to get out? Fill out our news tips form or fax your information to our confidential fax line at (604) 736-9902. Your anonymity is guaranteed.

FOLLOW US!

 

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-NEWSLETTER
Get our Top 5 stories in your inbox weekly.
DESMOG TIP JAR
Help us clear the PR pollution that clouds climate science.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

DesmogBlog

ashleybraun profile

ashleybraun 10.1 billion people by the end of the century, huh? http://t.co/KcdNXtU yesterday · reply · retweet · favorite

DeSmogBlog profile

DeSmogBlog Solar struggle feeds into power cost blame game – The Canberra Times http://bit.ly/iuNXxK yesterday · reply · retweet · favorite

greenpeaceca profile

greenpeaceca RT @nytimesglobal: Japan to Halt 3 Nuclear Reactors Over Quake Fears http://nyti.ms/mjaKkk 13 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite

greenpeaceca profile

greenpeaceca RT @info_activism: Inspiring exhibition touring UK this summer: Jiri Rezac photos tell the story of #tarsands http://ow.ly/4OCBs 13 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite

MEMBER OF THE PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS NETWORKProgressive Bloggers

Worldwatch Institute Report Shows Nuclear Industry Was in Decline Even Before Fukushima

New Worldwatch Institute Report, Timed in Conjunction with Chernobyl Anniversary, Shows Nuclear Industry Was in Decline Even Before Fukushima

Washington, D.C.—Even before the disaster in Fukushima, the world’s nuclear industry was in clear decline, according to a new report from the Worldwatch Institute. The report, which Worldwatch commissioned months before the Fukushima crisis began, paints a bleak picture of an aging industry unable to keep pace with its renewable energy competitors.

To download a free copy of this report, click here.

“The industry was arguably on life support before Fukushima. When the history of the nuclear industry is written, Fukushima is likely to begin its final chapter,” said Mycle Schneider, lead author of the new report, The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010-2011: Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World, and an international consultant on energy and nuclear policy.

Some of the report’s key findings include:

  • Annual renewable capacity additions have been outpacing nuclear start-ups for 15 years. In the United States, the share of renewables in new capacity additions skyrocketed from 2 percent in 2004 to 55 percent in 2009, with no new nuclear capacity added.
  • In 2010, for the first time, worldwide cumulative installed capacity from wind turbines, biomass, waste-to-energy, and solar power surpassed installed nuclear capacity. Meanwhile, total investment in renewable energy technologies was estimated at $243 billion in 2010.
  • As of April 1, 2011, there were 437 nuclear reactors operating in the world, seven fewer than in 2002. In 2008, for the first time since the beginning of the nuclear age, no new unit was started up. Seven new reactors were added in 2009 and 2010, while 11 were shut down during this period.
  • In 2009, nuclear power plants generated 2,558 Terawatt-hours of electricity, about 2 percent less than the previous year. The industry’s lobby organization headlined “another drop in nuclear generation”—the fourth year in a row.

Despite predictions in the United States and elsewhere of a nuclear “renaissance,” the report concludes that the role of nuclear power was in steady decline even before the Fukushima crisis. The disaster will make the construction of new nuclear plants and extensions to the lifetime of current plants even more unrealistic.

“U.S. news headlines often suggest that a nuclear renaissance is under way,” said Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin. “This was a big overstatement even before March 11, and the disaster in Japan will inevitably cause governments and companies that were considering new nuclear units to reassess their plans. The Three Mile Island accident caused a wholesale reassessment of nuclear safety regulations, massively increased the cost of nuclear power, and put an end to nuclear construction in the United States. For the global nuclear industry, the Fukushima disaster is an historic—if not fatal—setback.”

Notes for Media

For media in North America, please email Russell Simon at rsimon@worldwatch.org to interview Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin. For media in Europe, please email Mycle Schneider at mycle@orange.fr. Other media may contact either Russell Simon or Mycle Schneider for more information.

Further Resources

About the Worldwatch Institute:

Worldwatch Institute delivers the insights and ideas that empower decision makers to create an environmentally sustainable society that meets human needs. Worldwatch focuses on the 21st-century challenges of climate change, resource degradation, population growth, and poverty by developing and disseminating solid data and innovative strategies for achieving a sustainable society. The Institute’s State of the World report is published annually in more than 20 languages.

About Mycle Schneider:

Mycle Schneider is an independent international consultant on energy and nuclear policy based in Paris. He founded the Energy Information Agency WISE-Paris in 1983 and directed it until 2003. Since 1997 he has provided information and consulting services to the Belgian Energy Minister, the French and German Environment Ministries, USAID, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Greenpeace, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the European Commission, the European Parliament’s General Directorate for Research, and the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety. He is a member of the Princeton University based International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM).  In 1997, along with Japan’s Jinzaburo Takagi, he received the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the “Alternative Nobel Prize.”

Worldwatch E-mail List:

If you would like to receive Worldwatch press advisories regularly, please sign up at www.worldwatch.org/press-room.

Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations

Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations:  A letter

Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro and Anthony Ingraffea

SpringerLink – Climatic Change, Online First™.

Here’s the direct link TO THE SITE
LINK TO PDF OF STUDY
LINK TO SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

TASK FORCE ON ENSURING STABLE NATURAL GAS MARKETS

63704_BPC_web.pdf (application/pdf Object).

Bipartisan Policy Center and the American Clean Skies Foundation

TASK FORCE ON ENSURING STABLE NATURAl GAS MARKETS

Developing Natural Gas in the Marcellus and other Shale Formations is likely to Aggravate Global Warming–Mar. 15, Cornell U.

Developing Natural Gas in the Marcellus and other Shale Formations is likely to
Aggravate Global Warming

Presenters: Bob Howarth, Renee Santoro, and Tony Ingraffea

Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology and
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Cornell University

Tuesday, March 15, 2011
12:00 – 1:00 pm
205 Thurston Hall, Cornell University

Open to the public

Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal – Epstein – 2011 – Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences – Wiley Online Library

Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal – Epstein – 2011 – Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences – Wiley Online Library.

Department of Energy Foresees Solar, Wind Power as Cheap as Fossil Fuels – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

Department of Energy Foresees Solar, Wind Power as Cheap as Fossil Fuels – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views.

Growing in Power, Natural Gas Attracts Enemies – NYTimes.com

Growing in Power, Natural Gas Attracts Enemies – NYTimes.com.

By ANNE C. MULKERN of Greenwire
Published: February 16, 2011
Green

A blog about energy and the environment.

As the fuel grows in market share and political power, several green groups have launched campaigns highlighting potential problems. They raise questions about everything from how natural gas is extracted to how much of a climate benefit it offers over competitors.

“Natural gas, especially newly available unconventional gas, has the potential to dramatically shift the energy landscape in the U.S.,” said Matt Watson, senior energy policy manager at Environmental Defense Fund. “Done right, it could be an important part of de-carbonizing our economy as we ramp up on truly clean energy resources. Done wrong, it could further entrench us on the losing side of the climate equation and do very real damage.”

The efforts build on the buzz of Oscar-nominated “Gasland,” an anti-drilling documentary. The natural gas industry, which calls many aspects of that movie erroneous, argues that the concerns of environmental groups are misplaced.

“We are proud of the extraordinary role that natural gas can play in power generation, transportation and manufacturing to advance cleaner air and improve U.S. energy security,” said Dan Whitten, spokesman for America’s Natural Gas Alliance, the trade group for independent companies. “Our members are committed to the safe and responsible development of this resource.”

Natural gas is surging in use, pushed by record low prices for the fuel.

In 2010, natural gas constituted 24 percent of power generation, from 13 percent in 1996, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

EIA projects that by 2024, natural gas will drop back slightly to 21 percent because of growth in renewable power and because the price of natural gas will start to rise, making coal more competitive.

But it could be buoyed by Congress. Some are talking about including the fuel in a clean energy standard, a requirement that utilities generate a portion of their power from less polluting sources.

President Obama in his State of the Union address said he wanted the country to use 80 percent clean power by 2035. In addition to renewable sources, the White House has mentioned meeting that goal with nuclear power, coal with carbon sequestration and some natural gas.

Groups like the Sierra Club have watched that growth and natural gas’s growing clout, and decided that they needed to seek more federal oversight.

“It became very evident that this was a huge, looming problem and we needed to get it right,” said Bruce Hamilton, director of the Sierra Club’s Global Warming and Energy Program. “We don’t just want to open the floodgates [and] at the same time not address the very, very serious impacts that natural gas has on the human and the natural environments.”

The Sierra Club argues that drilling for the fuel can lead to groundwater contamination and problems with leaks into homes. Natural gas drillers, the green group said, enjoy exemptions from parts of several environmental rules.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) contends that there are doubts about the widely held belief that natural gas emits half the greenhouse gases of coal.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, meanwhile, is filing lawsuits against developers it believes have violated federal law. NRDC also is also lobbying for beefed-up regulation of the hydraulic fracturing technique used in some drilling.

On Thursday, the cause gets help from Hollywood. NRDC and Environmental Working Group will join “Gasland” director Josh Fox in lobbying lawmakers on the need for more drilling regulation. Mark Ruffalo, an Oscar-nominated actor, also will attend. Ruffalo lives in New York and Fox part-time in Pennsylvania in towns affected by shale gas development.

The natural gas industry said it has plenty of regulation.

“Natural gas is routinely produced safely in communities across the country,” Whitten said. “This is due to the commitment of our industry to responsible development, and credit also is due to the vigilant oversight of state regulators.

Click link above for more.

GHG Howarth update on footprint of gas vs coal — Jan 2011

GHG update for web — Jan 2011 (2).pdf (application/pdf Object).

Assessment of the Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Natural Gas from Shale Formations
Obtained by High-Volume, Slick-Water Hydraulic Fracturing

Robert W. Howarth
David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology, Cornell University
(Revised January 26, 2011)
Natural gas is widely advertised and promoted as a clean burning fuel that produces less greenhouse gas
emissions than coal when burned. While it is true that less carbon dioxide is emitted from burning natural
gas than from burning coal per unit of energy generated, the combustion emissions are only part of story
and the comparison is quite misleading. With funding from the Park Foundation, my colleagues Renee
Santoro, Tony Ingraffea, and I have
assessed the likely footprint from
natural gas in comparison to coal.
We submitted a draft of our work
to a peer-reviewed journal in
November, and now have a revised
manuscript under consideration by
the journal. The revision is
improved with input from
reviewers and also uses new
information from a November 2010
report from the EPA. The EPA
report is the first significant update
by the agency on natural gas
emission factors since 1996, and
concludes that emissions –
particularly for shale gas – are
larger than previously believed.
Our research further supports this
conclusion.

Clean Air Under Siege – NYTimes.com

Clean Air Under Siege – NYTimes. Feb. 6, 2011.

 

Shortly after he entered the Senate in 2007, John Barrasso told his Wyoming constituents that the country’s biggest need was an energy policy to deal with carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.

That was then. In lockstep with other Senate Republicans, he helped kill last year’s energy and climate bill. Now he has introduced a bill that would bar the Environmental Protection Agency and any other part of the federal government from regulating carbon pollution.

Congress’s failure to enact a climate bill means that the E.P.A.’s authority to regulate these gases — an authority conferred by a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2007 — is, for now, the only tool available to the federal government to combat global warming.

The modest regulations the agency has already proposed, plus stronger ones it will issue later this year, should lead to the retirement of many of the nation’s older, dirtier coal-fired power plants and a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions.

Mr. Barrasso’s bill is not an isolated challenge. Senator James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who called global warming the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” has unveiled a somewhat narrower bill to undercut the E.P.A.’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide. Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican and new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, simultaneously introduced a companion bill.

There are a half-dozen other such measures in circulation, at least one of which would weaken the agency’s long-held powers to regulate conventional ground-level pollutants like soot and mercury.

One or another of these bills has a real shot in the Republican-controlled House. Their chances are slimmer in the Senate, where the bigger danger is a proposal by Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, that would block any new regulations on power plants and other industrial sources for two years.

That is just obstruction by another name. It would delay modernization and ensure that more carbon is dumped into the atmosphere. History shows that regulatory delays have a way of becoming permanent.

It is tempting to blame the entire energy industry for these attacks on the E.P.A.’s authority. The oil companies are pushing hard against any new rules. The utilities are split. Some companies like General Electric — whose chief executive, Jeffrey Immelt, is now advising President Obama — signed on to the energy bill that passed the House last year, when it was still under Democratic control.

Mr. Inhofe, an outlier before the midterm elections, has a lot more company now. Even among lawmakers who accept the facts of global warming, he is getting considerable mileage with baseless charges that the E.P.A. is running amok.

The agency does have a heavy regulatory agenda. It will issue proposals not only on greenhouse gases but also ozone, sulfur dioxide, and mercury, which poisons lakes and fish. These regulations are fully consistent with the Clean Air Act. Some of them should have been completed during the Bush years; all are essential to protect the environment. The agency’s administrator, Lisa Jackson, has moved cautiously, making clear that she will target only the largest polluters and not, as the Republicans claim, mom-and-pop businesses.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama promised to protect “common-sense safeguards” to the nation’s environment. The rules under siege in Congress will help clean the air, reduce toxic pollution in fish and slow emissions of greenhouse gases. It is hard to imagine anything more sensible than that.