Edglings

By Jessica Goad

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. just announced this morning that it is dropping out of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the right-wing corporate front group that drafts and shares conservative legislation with state legislators.  It has been behind various state “stand your ground” gun laws, voter suppression laws and efforts to teach climate change denial in schools.

ALEC has also endorsed various state attempts to “reclaim” federal public lands that belong to all Americans, which could eventually subject them to privatization and development.  As the Associated Press reported:

Lawmakers in Utah and Arizona have said the legislation is endorsed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that advocates conservative ideals, and they expect it to eventually be introduced in other Western states.

In March, Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R) signed an ALEC-backed bill into law that demands Congress turn over 30 million acres of public lands to the state or it will sue.  Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) vetoed similar legislation last month citing costs and dubious constitutionality.

Wal-Mart’s decision to drop ALEC makes sense in the context of their successful “Acres for America” program.  Since 2005, Wal-Mart has partnered with the National Fish and Wildlife Federation in an effort to conserve an acre of land for every one occupied by a Wal-Mart facility.  As of January 2012, the project has protected 687,000 acres.

As Wal-Mart’s corporate website states:

That promise reflected a company-wide dedication to sustainability and stewardship of our natural resources. With an initial $35 million commitment, Walmart expected to enroll an estimated 138,000 acres in the program by 2015. But by the end of 2010, it had far surpassed that benchmark, conserving more than 625,000 acres and connecting more than 6.7 million protected acres—an area larger than Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware combined.

Despite continued corporate defections from ALEC, its efforts to undermine public lands protection may not be over.  In Colorado, a bill has been introduced that would sell 22 million acres of national forests to the highest bidder, although one state representative is considering amending it to merely cede the acreage to the state.  And, similar bills are rumored to be in development in Montana, Idaho, and New Mexico.

As Think Progress reports:

Groups that have dropped ALEC include: Amazon.com, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kraft, Wendy’s,Mars, Inc., Arizona Public Service, the National Board for Professional Teaching StandardsScantron, The National Association of Charter School Authorizers, Kaplan, Procter & Gamble, Yum! Brands, five Pennsylvania legislators, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Reed Elsevier,American Traffic Solutions, Intuit, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

A round-up of the top climate and energy news. Please post other links below.

The world’s air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant. Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn’t quite a surprise, because it’s been rising at an accelerating pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395. [Washington Post]

It’s been at least 800,000 years — probably more — since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s….

Readings are coming in at 400 and higher all over the Arctic. They’ve been recorded in Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Iceland and even Mongolia. But levels change with the seasons and will drop a bit in the summer, when plants suck up carbon dioxide, NOAA scientists said.

“It’s an important threshold,” said Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a scientist who helps lead the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “It is an indication that we’re in a different world.”

An international coalition of nearly 100 people protested outside the Chevron shareholders’ meeting Wednesday in San Ramon. They claim the company is engaging in risky and dangerous operations overseas. [ABC]

My argument is that the same general principles that lead libertarians and conservatives to call for greater protection of property rights should lead them to call for greater attention to the most likely effects of climate change. Libertarians readily accept this principle when government planners violate property rights in the name of economic development (see e.g., Kelo v. New London). Yet they seem to abandon their commitment to property rights when it comes to global warming. [The Atlantic]

In the three years since President Barack Obama took office, Republicans have made the Environmental Protection Agency a lightning rod for complaints that his administration has been too tough on oil and gas producers. But an Associated Press analysis of enforcement data over the past decade finds that’s not the case. In fact, the EPA went after producers more often in the years of Republican President George W. Bush, a former Texas oilman, than under Obama. [AP]

American Electric Power conceded defeat on Wednesday, at least temporarily, in its push to save Big Sandy, its 49-year-old coal-burning plant in eastern Kentucky, surprising state officials there by withdrawing its $1 billion plan to retrofit the power plant so that it can meet tough new federal environmental regulations. [NYT]

A massive wildfire that has burned more than 265 square miles in the Gila National Forest has become the largest fire in New Mexico history, fire officials confirmed Wednesday.
The erratic blaze grew overnight to more than 170,000 acres, surpassing a blaze last year that burned 156,593 acres in Los Conchas and threatened the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the nation’s premier nuclear facility. [WSJ]

by Jocelyn Fong, via Media Matters

Following relentless attacks on the solar industry in the wake of Solyndra’s bankruptcy, wind power has become the latest target of the right-wing campaign against renewable energy. But contrary to the myths propagated by the conservative media, wind power is safe, increasingly affordable, and has the potential to significantly reduce pollution and U.S. reliance on fossil fuels.

FACT: Fossil Fuels Pose Far Greater Threat To Wildlife

MYTH: Wind Turbines Are Bird-Killing Machines

• Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld: “Wind power is the Ted Bundy of bird-killers.” [Fox News, The Five, 9/30/11, via Nexis]
• Marc Morano said on Fox News: “We’ve already known that windmills, as you mentioned, are killing birds. Estimates from 400,000 birds a year to almost a million… They’re called bird blenders.” [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/30/12]
• The Hoover Institution’s Deroy Murdock wrote: “The dirty secret about ‘clean’ wind power is that its turbines are giant whirling machetes.” He went on to claim that the Obama administration “wants to give wind-power companies long-term permits to butcher bald eagles on the altar of green energy.” [Washington Times, 5/18/12]
• In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the Manhattan Institute’s Robert Bryce wrote that “as the bird carcasses pile up,” “the wind industry’s unofficial license to kill wildlife is finally getting some serious scrutiny.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/7/12]

NRC: Wind Energy Accounts For “Minute Fraction” Of Human-Caused Bird Deaths. A 2007 report by the National Research Council concluded that wind turbine losses account for “a minute fraction” of bird deaths caused by human activities:

Collisions with buildings kill 97 to 976 million birds annually; collisions with high-tension lines kill at least 130 million birds, perhaps more than one billion; collisions with communications towers kill between 4 and 5 million based on “conservative estimates,” but could be as high as 50 million; cars may kill 80 million birds per year; and collisions with wind turbines killed an estimated at 20,000 to 37,000 birds per year in 2003, with all but 9,200 of those deaths occurring in California. Toxic chemicals, including pesticides, kill more than 72 million birds each year, while domestic cats are estimated to kill hundreds of millions of songbirds and other species each year. Erickson et al. (2005) estimate that total cumulative bird mortality in the United States “may easily approach 1 billion birds per year.”

Clearly, bird deaths caused by wind turbines are a minute fraction of the total anthropogenic bird deaths–less than 0.003% in 2003 based on the estimates of Erickson et al. (2005). [National Research Council, May 2007]

[JR: See also “No wonder they’re angry: 13.7 million birds are dying every day in the U.S.”]

Fossil Fuels Drive Climate Change, Which Threatens Hundreds Of Bird Species. A 2008 Department of Energy report noted that wind-related bird deaths cannot compare to the threat of climate change:

Publicity related to wind power developments often focuses on wind power’s impact on birds, especially their collisions with turbines. Although this is a valid environmental concern that needs to be addressed, the larger effects of global climate change also pose significant and growing threats to birds and other wildlife species.

[…]

The future for birds in a world of global climate change is particularly bleak. A recent article found that 950 to 1,800 terrestrial bird species are imperiled by climate changes and habitat loss. [Department of Energy, July 2008]

Wind Turbines Pose “No Population Risks To Birds” In New England. A comparison of the impact of six electricity generation types on wildlife in New England found that wind power poses “no population-level risks to birds.” Factoring in the effects of pollution and climate change, it concludes that “non-renewable electricity generation sources, such as coal and oil, pose higher risks to wildlife than renewable electricity generation sources, such as hydro and wind.” [New York State Energy Research And Development Authority, March 2009]

Coal Development Destroys Bird Habitats. According to the American Bird Conservancy:

Generally, impacts on wildlife have not had a significant effect on the ability to produce coal. For example, the Appalachian region is one of the most biodiverse parts of the country, and important habitat for many migratory birds, including warblers, waterthrushes, and vireos. It is also important to the coal industry. Over 1,200 mines are found in the region. Some 380,574 acres of forest habitat were destroyed for the purpose of mountaintop removal from 1992 to 2002.

[…]

Mining practices … are blamed in part for the decline in the population of the Cerulean Warbler, a small, blue songbird that breeds in the mature forests of the Appalachian Mountains. This migratory species has experienced a 70% decline since 1966. The Louisiana Waterthrush, Worm-eating Warbler, Black-and-white Warbler, and Yellow-throated Vireo are also being threatened by removal of forest habitat. [American Bird Conservancy, accessed 5/17/12]

Up To One Million Birds Are Killed Every Year In Oilfield Production Pits. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Every year an estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds are killed in oilfield production skim pits, reserve pits, and in oilfield wastewater disposal facilities according to a study published by Pepper Trail, forensic ornithologist with the Service’s Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon. [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 8/19/11]

By Contrast, Estimates Of Wind-Related Bird Deaths Range From 150,000 To 440,000 Per Year. PolitiFact reported:

David Cottingham, senior adviser to Fish and Wildlife Director Dan Ashe, confirmed that the 440,000 bird deaths often attributed to the division are actually the estimates of one biologist – Manville – and are not considered official agency statistics.

[…]

The National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, which includes Fish and Wildlife officials and representatives from the wind industry, utilities and others, looked at the issue and concluded there are roughly three to four birds killed per megawatt every year. With current capacity at roughly 50,000 megawatts, that comes to 150,000 to 200,000 birds per year.

Cottingham said those estimates are the ones Fish and Wildlife would be most likely to cite when asked about bird deaths caused by turbines. [PolitiFact, 3/9/12]

Government, Industry And Environmentalists Are Collaborating To Reduce Bird Deaths. In March, the Obama administration published new guidelines for land-based wind farms aimed at reducing the number of wind-related bird deaths. The guidelines call on wind developers to “eliminate from consideration areas that would pose high risks to birds and other wildlife, and to take steps to alleviate problems by restoring nearby habitat and other actions,” according to the Associated Press. The guidelines were endorsed by both the American Wind Energy Association, an industry group, and the National Audubon Society, a conservation group. [Associated Press, 3/23/12]

FACT: There Is No Evidence That Wind Turbines Pose Health Risks

MYTH: Wind Turbines Adversely Impact Human Heath.

• Fox News’ John Stossel on wind turbines: “They’re going to kill birds, make noise, cause shadow flicker.” [Fox News, Stossel, 5/12/11, via Nexis]
• Town Hall’s Paul Driessen wrote: “The strobe-light effect, annoying audible noise, and inaudible low-frequency sound from whirling blades result in nervous fatigue, headaches, dizziness, irritability, sleep problems, and vibro-acoustic effects on people’s hearts and lungs.” [Town Hall, 5/8/12]
• Fox Business’ Eric Bolling: “Turbines are popping up all across America, as the demand for the usage of wind energy is increasing. But at what cost? Residents close to them have reported everything from headaches to vertigo to UFO crashes.” [Fox Business, Follow the Money, 11/12/10, via Nexis]

Independent Report: There Is “No Evidence” For “Wind Turbine Syndrome.” A report prepared by an independent panel of experts for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection concluded that there is “no evidence for a set of health effects, from exposure to wind turbines that could be characterized as a ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome.’” The study debunked several of the supposed health impacts of wind turbines:

There is insufficient evidence that the noise from wind turbines is directly (i.e., independent from an effect on annoyance or sleep) causing health problems or disease.

Claims that infrasound from wind turbines directly impacts the vestibular system have not been demonstrated scientifically.  Available evidence shows that the infrasound levels near wind turbines cannot impact the vestibular system.

[…]

The strongest epidemiological study suggests that there is not an association between noise from wind turbines and measures of psychological distress or mental health problems.

[…]

None of the limited epidemiological evidence reviewed suggests an association between noise from wind turbines and pain and stiffness, diabetes, high blood pressure, tinnitus, hearing impairment, cardiovascular disease, and headache/migraine. [Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, January 2012]

Literature Review: There Is No Proven Causal Link Between Proximity To Turbines And Health Effects. A review of the literature on the health impact of wind turbines concluded:

To date, no peer reviewed articles demonstrate a direct causal link between people living in proximity to modern wind turbines, the noise they emit and resulting physiological health effects. [Environmental Health Journal, 5/2/11]

Study: Shadow Flicker “Unlikely To Cause Adverse Health Impacts.” An assessment of the health impact of wind turbines by the Oregon Public Health Authority concluded:

Shadow flicker from wind turbines in Oregon is unlikely to cause adverse health impacts in the general population.  The low flicker rate from wind turbines is  unlikely to trigger seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy.  Further, the available scientific evidence suggests that very few individuals will be annoyed by the low flicker frequencies expected from most modern wind turbines. [Oregon Public Health Authority, 1/3/12]

By Contrast, Fossil Fuel Pollution Has Serious Health Consequences. A 2009 report by the National Research Council estimated that burning fossil fuels costs the U.S. about $120 billion a year in “hidden” health costs:

A new report from the National Research Council examines and, when possible, estimates “hidden” costs of energy production and use — such as the damage air pollution imposes on human health — that are not reflected in market prices of coal, oil, other energy sources, or the electricity and gasoline produced from them.  The report estimates dollar values for several major components of these costs.  The damages the committee was able to quantify were an estimated $120 billion in the U.S. in 2005, a number that reflects primarily health damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation and motor vehicle transportation.  The figure does not include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security, which the report examines but does not monetize. [National Academy of Sciences, 10/19/09]

FACT: New Wind Generation Will Be Cheaper Than New Coal Generation

MYTH: Wind Will Never Be Cost Competitive

• Marc Morano said on Fox News: “Wind power was around since the 13^th century. People say let’s let it compete with carbon-based energy, oil and gas. It did compete. Wind and solar have competed, and they had their rear-ends kicked!” [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/30/12]
• Town Hall’s Paul Driessen wrote: “Wind has never been able to compete economically with traditional energy, and there is no credible evidence that it will be able to in the foreseeable future, especially with abundant natural gas costing one-fourth what it did just a few years ago.” [Town Hall, 5/8/12]
• A Washington Times editorial stated: “Wind power made sense in the 18th century, but it doesn’t make sense now. The private sector isn’t interested in blowing money on hopelessly uneconomic windmill and solar projects.” [Washington Times, 3/14/12]

New Wind Generation Will Soon Be Cheaper Than New Coal Generation. In the Energy Information Administration’s most recent annual report, levelized costs for onshore wind that is brought on line in 2017 are cheaper than conventional or advanced coal brought on line in 2017. EIA explained that levelized cost is “often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies” and “represents the per kilowatthour cost (in real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant” for a certain period, but that “actual plant investment decisions are affected by the specific technological and regional characteristics of a project.”

[Energy Information Administration, 1/23/12]

Bloomberg New Energy: Some Wind Farms “Already Produce Power As Economically As Coal, Gas And Nuclear.” From a press release on the findings of a2011 Bloomberg New Energy Finance report:

The cost of electricity from onshore wind turbines will drop 12% in the next five years thanks to a mix of lower-cost equipment and gains in output efficiency, according to new research from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The best wind farms in the world already produce power as economically as coal, gas and nuclear generators; the average wind farm will be fully competitive by 2016. [Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 11/10/11]

Study: Wind Could Save Consumers Billions In Electricity Costs. A recent analysis by Synapse Energy Economics found that adding more wind power to the electric grid would bring down electricity costs in the Midwest region:

Synapse’s analysis indicates that the effect of introducing greater levels of wind resources into MISO [Midwest Independent System Operator] is to generally depress the average annual market price, relative to a baseline case of no additional wind generation beyond the existing 10 GW in place in MISO today. Since wind energy “fuel” is free, once built, wind power plants displace fossil-fueled generation and lower the price of marginal supply–thus lowering the energy market clearing price.

[…]

These market price declines will lead to reduced overall energy costs.  For this coal retirement sensitivity, power supply costs for MISO-region customers could range from $3.9 billion to $7.9 billion per year lower than baseline costs for the 20 GW wind addition, and from $6.1 to $12.2 billion per year lower than baseline costs for the 40 GW addition. These cost savings will exceed the annual costs of transmission improvements needed to integrate this level of wind addition. When including the effects of transmission, the net savings ranges from $3.0 billion to $6.9 billion per year for the 20 GW wind addition scenario, and $3.3 to $9.4 billion per year for the 40 GW wind addition scenario.

For an average MISO region residential customer using 1,000 kWh per month, this translates to a net savings that would range from $63 to $147 per year in 2020 (for the 20 GW wind addition scenario), and from $71 to $200 per year for the 40 GW wind addition scenario. [Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, 5/22/12]

FACT: Wind Capacity Is Already At 10% In Some States And Is Expanding Rapidly

MYTH: Wind Power Won’t Make A Dent In Our Energy Needs

• Marc Morano said on Fox News: “Worldwide, if you go for a whole number, 0% of energy is coming from wind. It’s still less than half a percent if you round… Oil and gas produce massive amounts of energy. Wind and solar don’t.” [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/30/12]
• Fox Business’ Charles Payne: “Imagine a utopian world where every car is electrically driven. We couldn’t build enough solar panels and enough windmills, it would still be fossil fuel.” [Fox News, Hannity, 3/14/12, via Nexis]
• The Wall Street Journal‘s Stephen Moore said on Fox News: “I hope, I sincerely hope the president doesn’t really believe that we can engine and power a $15 trillion industrial economy with windmills. It ain’t going to happen.” [Fox News, Hannity, 3/15/11, via Nexis]

EIA: U.S. Wind Generation Is “Continuing A Trend Of Rapid Growth.” A recent Energy Information Administration report stated that “Generation from wind turbines in the United States increased 27% in 2011 compared to 2010, continuing a trend of rapid growth.” The following chart demonstrates the continual increase in U.S. wind capacity:

[Energy Information Administration, 3/12/12]

Industry Saw Record Growth In The Beginning Of 2012. In the first quarter of 2012, the wind industry added 1,695 MW of electricity generating capacity – 52% more than it added in the first quarter of last year. This was the industry’s strongest first quarter on record. [Department of Energy, 5/9/12]

Wind Accounts For 35% Of New U.S. Power Capacity Since 2007. A letter to Congressional leaders signed by over 350 coalition members including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the Edison Electric Institute said, “In the last four years, wind energy has provided 35% of all new U.S. power capacity.” [National Association of Manufacturers, 11/17/11]

DOE Estimates Wind Could Provide 20% Of U.S. Electricity By 2030. A 2008 report by the Department of Energy stated that a “20% Wind Scenario in 2030, while ambitious, could be feasible” if the wind industry can expand manufacturing, increase turbine installations, and improve reliability. [Department of Energy, December 2008]

Wind Is Already Supplying More Than 10% Of Electricity In Five States. According to the Department of Energy:

Five states received more than 10% of their electricity from wind in 2011, with South Dakota leading the way with 22.3%. Iowa, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wyoming completed the list. [Department of Energy, 4/18/12]

Harvard Study: U.S. Wind Potential Is “16 Times More Than Total Electricity Demand.” The New York Times reported on the results of a 2009 study by Harvard University:

Using data from thousands of meteorological stations, the Harvard team estimated the world wind power potential to be 40 times greater than total current power consumption. A previous study cited in the paper put that multiple at about 7 times.

In the lower 48 states, the potential from wind power is 16 times more than total electricity demand in the United States, the researchers suggested – significantly greater than a 2008 Department of Energy study that projected wind could supply a fifth of all electricity in the country by 2030. [New York Times, 7/16/09]

FACT: Wind Energy Could Substantially Reduce America’s Carbon Footprint

MYTH: Wind Won’t Affect Carbon Emissions, And May Even “Cause Global Warming”

• The Manhattan Institute’s Robert Bryce wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed: “A slew of recent studies show that wind-generated electricity likely won’t result in any reduction in carbon emissions–or that they’ll be so small as to be almost meaningless.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/23/10]
• Forbes columnist Larry Bell wrote: “CO2 emission reductions [from wind power] are largely mythological.” [Forbes, 5/22/12]
• Linking to a Reuters article, Fox Nation ran the headline: “New Research Shows Wind Farms Cause Global Warming.” [Fox Nation, 4/30/12]

Right-Wing Media Distorted Study To Claim Wind Farms Cause Global Warming. Some ofthese media reports are based on a study of satellite data which found that nighttime land temperatures near Texas wind farms have increased relative to nearby areas without turbines. The lead author of that study told Media Matters that the coverage has been “misleading,” clarifying in a press release:

Very likely, the wind turbines do not create a net warming of the air and instead only redistribute the air’s heat near the surface (the turbine itself does not generate any heat), which is fundamentally different from the large-scale warming effect caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels. [University of Albany, accessed 5/14/12]

NREL: Every 1,000MW Of Wind Energy Offsets 2.6 Million Tons Of CO2. A 2009 report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimated that every 1,000 MW of wind energy reduces carbon emissions by 2.6 million tons. [NREL, March 2009]

DOE: Wind Could Reduce Annual Emissions By 825 Million Tons By 2030. According to a Department Of Energy report analyzing a 20% wind scenario:

Supplying 20% of U.S. electricity from wind could reduce annual electric sector carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 825 million metric tons by 2030.

[Department of Energy, December 2008]

FACT: Wind Has Achieved Huge Advances With Federal Support

MYTH: Funding For Wind Has Gone To Waste

• American Commitment’s Phil Kerpen said on Fox News: “If you look at all the failure around Solyndra, the wind subsidies, ethanol and Obama is out there on the stomp day after day saying, we need to double down. The guys sounds like a degenerate gambler who can’t recognize when he’s losing.” [Fox News, Hannity, 4/13/12, via Nexis]
• Town Hall’s Paul Driessen wrote: “Despite tens of billions in subsidies, wind turbines still generate less than 3% of US electricity.” Calling for an end to wind incentives, he said: “Politicians take billions from taxpayers, ratepayers and profitable businesses, to provide subsidies to Big Wind companies, who buy Made Somewhere Else turbines.” [Town Hall, 5/8/12]
• The Heritage Foundation’s Romina Boccia wrote in a blog post: “Subsidies like the wind energy production tax credit also perpetuate the mediocrity of the wind industry by distorting the market processes that guide entrepreneurs and investors toward the most promising energy solutions.” [The Foundry, 2/24/12]

Production Tax Credit Helps Makes Wind Power Competitive With Natural Gas. From Beyond Boom & Bust: Putting Clean Tech On A Path To Subsidy Independence, a report by scholars at the Breakthrough Institute, the Brookings Institution and the World Resources Institute:

At present, the federal PTC [Production Tax Credit] for wind power production brings the levelized cost of electricity from new wind power projects down to an estimated range of $33-65 per megawatt-hour (MWh), depending on the quality of wind resource.

At these prices wind power is broadly competitive with new gasfired generation (with levelized costs as low as $52 at likely gas prices, see Box 1), supporting robust market expansion.

However, the PTC is scheduled to expire at the end of 2012, creating significant market uncertainty and prompting manufacturers of wind turbine components to prepare for layoffs and substantial market contraction. [Brookings Institution, April 2012]

Business Groups: U.S. Wind Manufacturing Has Grown 12-Fold. From a letter by over 350 coalition members including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the Edison Electric Institute:

Equipped with the PTC, the wind energy industry has contributed impressively to U.S. economic development. Since 2005, the wind industry has spurred more than $60 billion of investment. Today, over 400 facilities across 43 states manufacture for the wind energy industry. US wind turbine manufacturing has grown 12-fold – 60% of a wind turbine’s value is now produced here in America, as compared to 25% prior to 2005. Further, costs have been reduced over 90% since 1980, recently driven by a surge in game changing technological advances. In the last four years, wind energy has provided 35% of all new U.S. power capacity.

Yet despite its clear success, the PTC has been allowed to expire frequently and is again set to expire at the end of 2012. Now is not the time to increase taxes on wind energy. The PTC should be extended for at least another four years so that American know-how can keep producing domestic clean energy. [National Association of Manufacturers, 11/17/11]

Wind Boom In Texas Attributed To Production Tax Credit. From an October 19 ClimateWire article:

The production tax credit is widely seen as a key driver of the Texas wind boom. It lowers the cost of producing wind power by 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, providing a financial edge that has helped developers compete with low-priced electricity derived from coal and natural gas.

The credit, called the PTC, was so instrumental in the state’s rise to wind dominance that a report issued by [Republican Governor Rick] Perry’s office last year described it as a “crucial” piece in a broad plan to lower the price of wind energy. It complemented a state mandate requiring utilities to use more renewable energy and a fee-based program designed to carry far-flung wind power to urban centers along new transmission lines. [ClimateWire, 10/19/11, via Nexis]

CBO: U.S. Has Long Subsidized Oil And Gas With Permanent Tax Breaks. A Congressional Budget Office issue brief on federal financial support for energy development noted that “Under current law, most of the tax preferences for energy efficiency and renewable energy will expire, but preferences for fossil fuels are permanent.” CBO further explained:

Tax preferences for energy were first established in 1916, and until 2005 they were primarily intended to stimulate domestic production of oil and natural gas. Beginning in 2006, the cost of energy-related tax preferences grew substantially, and an increasing share was aimed at encouraging energy efficiency and energy produced from renewable sources, such as wind and the sun, which generally cause less environmental damage than would result from producing and consuming fossil fuels. Provisions aimed at energy efficiency and renewable energy accounted for 78 percent of the budgetary cost of federal energy-related tax preferences in 2011. However, four of those provisions, including the one with the greatest budgetary impact, expired at the end of calendar year 2011. Only four major tax preferences are permanent, three of which are directed toward fossil fuels and one of which is directed toward nuclear energy.

[Congressional Budget Office, March 2012]

CRS: Wind Power Incentives “Have Been Much Larger In Several Foreign Countries.” Noting that federal policies in the U.S. “have been instrumental in the development of a domestically-based wind power sector,” the Congressional Research Service added:

Worldwide the wind power industry is driven by various types of government support, which range from tax credits to incentive policies like feed-in tariffs. These incentives have been much larger in several foreign countries than in the United States, which has helped to spur the manufacturing of wind turbines in Europe and Asia.

[…]

The expansion of U.S. wind power generation will depend, at least in part, on government policy decisions. If state and federal governments continue to support wind generation, manufacturing of wind generating equipment in the United States is likely to increase. The production costs of U.S. plants that make turbine components appear to be competitive with those in other countries, and the difficulty and expense of transporting very bulky products over long distances serves as an obstacle to import competition. [Congressional Research Service, 9/23/11]

Jocelyn Fong is a researcher with Media Matters for America. This piece was originally published at Media Matters and was reprinted with permission.

It always amazes me how many climate bloggers don’t know the scientific literature and don’t use Google to check key facts.

And so, in the annals of phony attacks on climate realists, such as International Energy Agency chief economist Fatih Birol (and me), we now have the most inane. Our bunny friend Eli Rabbet has a brilliant post nibbling on the know-nothings who foisted this inanity on the blogosphere (click here, reposted below).

But the story is so entertainingly informative (informatively entertaining?) as to how the blogosphere fabricates attacks on people that I’ll run through the key elements. On Friday, May 24, I published a piece headlined “IEA: Global CO2 Emissions Hit New Record In 2011, Keeping World On Track For ‘Devastating’ 11°F Warming.”

I have written literally dozens and dozens of posts explaining that this is what the IEA (and others) now says is possible by 2100. Here, for instance, is an M.I.T. figure I use a lot:

Humanity’s Choice (via M.I.T.): Inaction (“No Policy”) eliminates most of the uncertainty about whether or not future warming will be catastrophic.  Aggressive emissions reductions dramatically improves humanity’s chances. Note that this is 2091-2100 surface warming compared to 1981-2000 — and the mean warming during that time is 5.17°C [See Table 4], which means from preindustrial times to 2100, the total warming would likely exceed 5.7°C.

I confess I thought this was so obvious that it slipped my mind to actually put in the phrase “by 2100.” But the original Reuters story (here) did have an obvious mistake:

“When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,” Fatih Birol, IEA’s chief economist told Reuters.

Again, I thought the mistake, “(by 2050),” was so obviously one the reporter foisted on Birol with the parenthetical comment that I simply omitted it in my post:

“When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius [11°F], which would have devastating consequences for the planet.”

I (too) cleverly took out the obviously incorrect parenthetical comment by the reporter and replaced it with  Fahrenheit conversion. I had intended when I was writing the article to mention that Reuters made a mistake but it slipped my mind by the time I finished.

Note to self: Always do things when you think of them and don’t expect to remember them at some later time!

When a commenter went to the original Reuters piece and pointed out that 2050 “makes no sense,” I noted in the comments “I meant to post that 2050 is obviously a mistake by the reporter.”

What I didn’t know — because I have stopped reading the blogs of the disinformers and confusionists since their traffic and their impact have hit a brick wall a long while ago — is that some easily and/or willfully confused bloggers spun up a phony attack on Birol (and me) because they assumed, nonsensically:

1. That Birol made the mistake, not the reporter.
2. That I agreed with the mistake — even though I had never posted it and in fact had obviously omitted it from my post!

Now what makes this exemplary of the kind of nonsense the disinformers and confusionists push on a regular basis is that anybody who actually had a moment’s doubt about the timeframe over which EIA actually believes the warming will occur could  find out the answer in under 30 seconds on Google!

Just Google “IEA 6C Warming” and the second hit is this UK Guardian piece from April 24 of this year, “Governments failing to avert catastrophic climate change, IEA warns,” about IEA executive director Maria van der Hoeven:

On current form, she warns, the world is on track for warming of 6C by the end of the century – a level that would create catastrophe, wiping out agriculture in many areas and rendering swathes of the globe uninhabitable, as well as raising sea levels and causing mass migration, according to scientists.

And just in case there was any confusion, the article quotes her directly two paragraphs later:

“Energy-related CO2 emissions are at historic highs, and under current policies, we estimate that energy use and CO2 emissions would increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050. This would be likely to send global temperatures at least 6C higher within this century.”

Talk about much ado about nothing. Or is that much ado from know nothings?

I should add that whether the 11F warming is from preindustrial levels or just the warming this century or it doesn’t happen until say 2125 is beyond irrelevant. The first 4C (7F) of warming is going to destroy a livable climate, possibly for centuries, and what comes after that is, well, beyond imagining. Still, the planet would almost certainly keep warming past 2100 if we were on the high emission scenario:

• Science stunner — On our current emissions path, CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter:  Paleoclimate data suggests CO2 “may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models”

Steve Easterbrook’s post “A first glimpse at model results for the next IPCC assessment” shows that for the scenario where there is (5°C) 9°F warming by 2100 (from preindustrial levels), you get another 7°F warming by 2300.  Of course, folks that aren’t motivated to avoid the civilization-destroying 9°F by 2100 won’t be moved by whatever happens after that.

I’ll end my post with Birol’s great quote from late last year, World on Pace for 11°F Warming, “Even School Children Know This Will Have Catastrophic Implications for All of Us.” If only school children blogged more!

Finally, I’ll let our hopping mad friend Eli Rabett explain the full story.

What follows is a repost from Rabett Run. I’m not indenting it for reasons that should become clear. I do caution folks not to read any further without a very good head vise.

Axe Grinding

By Eli Rabett

Campaigning in Craig, Colorado yesterday, Mitt Romney’s campaign claimed that no clean energy jobs exist in the state — even though the Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are more than 70,000 of them.

Romney also made another blunder: By using the town of Craig has an example of a “hurting” community in coal country, his speech was based on a fabricated story. After the speech, town residents completely contradicted Romney’s talking points in interviews with the New York Times:

The city’s finance director, Bruce Nelson, said that tax revenue had bounced back strongly since last late year. “We are holding our own,” he said.

Terry Carwile, the mayor of Craig and a retired coal miner, went further, saying that the economy was “getting better” in the town of 9,500 as oil speculation intensified. He played down the suggestion that federal regulations had wounded the local coal industry.

“The policies of the federal government really aren’t that impactful to us so far,” he said. He acknowledged that they were “a concern,” though, and that residents were ever wary of government meddling in their biggest industry.

That was not the message from Mr. Romney, who spoke to about 1,000 residents in a park near the town’s center.

Romney also ignored another inconvenient fact: Coal production and jobs are both up in Colorado.

“I’m not going to forget Craig, Colorado,” Romney said in yesterday’s speech. “I’m not going to forget communities like this across the country that are hurting right now under this president.”

However, unemployment in the county is down from 11 percent last year to 8.3 percent this year. And state-wide, coal production was up 10.4 percent in 2011 after seven years of decline. According to the Denver Post, the industry is planning four new mines.

The story is similar in West Virginia, where coal mining employment has grown by 1,500 since 2009 — a two-decade high. Coal generation may be down 19 percent nationally, but this is largely due to the low price of natural gas, not regulation.

Peabody Energy bused 148 miners to Romney’s speech and compensated the miners for their time.

by Jessica Goad

A new study released today by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finds that in three regions, homes sited close to national wildlife refuges have a higher value than those that are further away.

The study, “Amenity Values of Proximity to National Wildlife Refuges,” provides even more evidence that protected public lands are good for local economies and communities, despite what some opponents in Congress and their industry allies might claim.

The Fish and Wildlife Service called this report “the first national study to analyze national wildlife refuges’ impact on land values.” It finds:

On average, being in close proximity to a [national wildlife refuge] increases the value of homes in urbanized areas, all else equal. Specifically, we find that homes located within 0.5 miles of a [refuge] within 8 miles of an urban center are valued:

-  4% – 5% higher in the Northeast region;

-  7% – 9% higher in the Southeast region; and

-  3% – 6% higher in California/Nevada region.

Census data was used to focus on the 93 refuges in the lower 48 states within two miles of an urban area. Additionally, they found that total capitalized value of a specific refuge can be anywhere between $1 million and $40 million.

In addition to raising home values, the Department of the Interior found that national wildlife refuges contributed $4 billion to the economy and supported 32,000 jobs in 2010.

Despite their extraordinarily valuable contributions to local economies, some Republicans in Congress have sought to roll back protections for national wildlife refuges and limit the ability to designate new ones.

Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), introduced the National Wildlife Refuge Review Act (H.R. 3009) which would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from establishing new wildlife refuges and turn over that authority to Congress, which has not passed any meaningful land conservation bills since John Boehner (R-OH) has been Speaker of the House.

And the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act (H.R. 4089), introduced by Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL), would roll back a number of important environmental laws for national wildlife refuges.

Despite the partisan attacks on our public lands, evidence continues to mount showing that protecting them offers a range of economic benefits. For example, a report from Headwaters Economics earlier this month determined that over 40 years jobs increased by 300% in rural Western counties with more than 30% protected lands.

– Jessica Goad is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

I’m drawn to “boring” ways to change energy use: things like daylighting, reducing packaging, and making company supply-chains more efficient. Without these methods to help reduce our energy demand, the “exciting” solutions like renewable energy are less valuable.

And what could be more boring than painting a roof white? Turns out, it’s also an important solution for reducing energy use and lowering carbon dioxide emissions.

A NASA survey of New York City’s rooftops last July showed that dark, heat-absorbing rooftops were up to 42 degrees F hotter than white rooftops. And that difference in heat can make a big difference in on-site energy use; painting a roof white can reduce air conditioning demand as much as 20 percent.

In February, researchers at Concordia University estimated that painting one percent of the world’s urban surfaces white (rooftops and pavement) could reduce CO2 emissions by 130 gigatons over the next 50-100 years. In 2011, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion reached 31.5 gigatons.

Clearly, white roofs are a major opportunity. But while we’ve seen a proliferation of companies selling on-site solar and efficiency services, there’s been only modest activity in this market. Why aren’t more companies jumping on this around the country?

“I’m not sure why an organization doesn’t exist like this in every city. And it should,” says Juan Carlos, founder of the White Roof Project, a non-profit based in New York City that harnesses volunteers to provide roof painting services.

Having found a good niche with decent demand, the organization is now trying to branch out of New York and take its rooftop painting model nationwide. According to Carlos, painting 5% of the world’s rooftops white per year by 2030 could save enough emissions to equal the world’s carbon output in 2010.

“That would essentially turn off the entire world for an entire year,” he says.

The film below documents what the organization is trying to accomplish. With cities around the world adopting building codes to promote white roofs, the opportunities for this solution are increasing. But we’ve still got a long way to go before we can service so many rooftops per year.

Photo by Walter Disney

The International Energy Agency has a new report out, Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas. Unfortunately, the IEA buried the lede — the Golden Age of Gas scenario destroys a livable climate — so the coverage of the report was off target.

For instance, the New York Times opines, “Energy Agency Finds Safe Gas Drilling is Cheap.” And the Council on Foreign Relation headline is similar, “Safe Fracking Looks Cheap.”

That’s true only if a ruined climate, widespread Dust-Bowlification, an acidified ocean, and rapidly rising sea levels is your idea of “safe.”

Still, the IEA deserves much of the blame for this miscoverage. It’s not until page 91 (!) of the full report that the agency explains that adopting its “Golden Rules” for developing shale gas doesn’t stop catastrophe:

The Golden Rules Case puts CO2 emissions on a long-term trajectory consistent with stabilising the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions at around 650 parts per million, a trajectory consistent with a probable temperature rise of more than 3.5 degrees Celsius (°C) in the long term, well above the widely accepted 2°C target. This finding reinforces a central conclusion from the WEO special report on a Golden Age of Gas (IEA, 2011b), that, while a greater role for natural gas in the global energy mix does bring environmental benefits where it substitutes for other fossil fuels, natural gas cannot on its own provide the answer to the challenge of climate change.

D’oh! Or is that Duh?

The IEA was far clearer and blunter when it released its original report, as I wrote last year: IEA’s “Golden Age of Gas Scenario” Leads to More Than 6°F Warming and Out-of-Control Climate Change. At the time, the UK Guardian‘s story put it well:

At such a level, global warming could run out of control, deserts would take over in southern Africa, Australia and the western US, and sea level rises could engulf small island states.

Not exactly a champagne moment.

Also, it’s far from clear that 650 ppm is even stable, in the sense of not triggering carbon cycle feedbacks that cause further warming — or not crossing dangerous tipping points (see “New study of Greenland under ‘more realistic forcings’ concludes ‘collapse of the ice-sheet was found to occur between 400 and 560 ppm’ of CO2” and “Hansen Is Correct About Catastrophic Projections For U.S. Drought If We Don’t Act Now“).

If we risk warming beyond 3.5C, we are courting multiple, simultaneous disasters. Such warming is “incompatible with organized global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems & has a high probability of not being stable (i.e.  4°C [7F] would be an interim temperature on the way to a much higher equilibrium level),” according to Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change in Britain (see here).

Also, the IEA scenario assumes coal use is basically flat from from 2020 to 2035, which the report makes pretty clear would require a price on carbon. Without a carbon price, natural gas is a brige to nowhere and can actually crowd out carbon-free sources of power. That was precisely the point made by Nobuo Tanaka, executive director of the IEA, at a London press conference for the 2011 report:

“While natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, it is still a fossil fuel. Its increased use could muscle out low-carbon fuels such as renewables and nuclear, particularly in the wake of Fukushima. An expansion of gas use alone is no panacea for climate change.”

The UK Guardian focused on the crowding effect for its piece Tuesday on the new report, “ ‘Golden age of gas’ threatens renewable energy, IEA warns.”

To be clear, the “Golden Rules” proposed by the IEA still lead to a 20% rise in energy-related CO2 emissions from 2010 to 2035, a time we need to be slashing global CO2 levels. As climatologist Ken Caldeira told me in March, natural gas is “A Bridge To A World With High CO2 Levels.

Oh, and there’s a mini-bombshell that the IEA sticks in a footnote when discussing options for avoiding the 3.5+ C warming:

This conclusion could be changed by widespread application of technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which could reduce considerably the emissions from the consumption of gas (and other fossil fuels); but this is not assumed in the period to 2035.[15]

It’s wise not to assume much CCS by 2035 given the unresolved feasibility, permanence and safety issues surrounding CCS as well as the fact that CCS efforts around the world are being scaled back or terminated.

But here’s the IEA’s footnote 15:

15.  There is the possibility that the capacities for CO2 storage might be affected by hydraulic fracturing. A recent study (Elliot and Celia, 2012) estimated that 80% of the potential area to store CO2 underground in the United States could be prejudiced by shale and tight gas development, although others have argued that, even if the rock seal in one place were to be broken by hydraulic fracturing, other layers of impermeable rock underneath the fractured area would block migration of the CO2.

Yeow!

I’d been meaning to blog on that study, “Potential Restrictions for CO2 Sequestration Sites Due to Shale and Tight Gas Production” (abstract here). No, this study doesn’t mean fracking will wipe out all potential CCS storage areas. But it does suggest that an all-out fracking spree — aka the Golden Age of Gas Scenario aka GAGS — will constrict our storage options in the future.

Finally, on my 2011 post on GAGS, Tyler Hamilton, Business Columnist at The Toronto Star, commented:

Not only is gas threatening to crowd out renewables, cheap natural gas — viewed as an input fuel — is dramatically improving the economics for unconventional oil. More cheap gas means more dirty oil. Not a good combination. http://bit.ly/KIqApe

The bottom line is that if your goal is to stay under or as close to 4°F warming as possible, then we can’t be investing significant resources in new fossil fuel infrastructure — especially without a high and rising CO2 price.

Related Posts:

• Natural Gas Is A Bridge To Nowhere Absent A Carbon Price AND Strong Standards To Reduce Methane Leakage
• New Study: You Can’t Slow Projected Warming With Gas, You Need ‘Rapid and Massive Deployment’ of Zero-Carbon Power.
• Must-Read Caldeira: ‘The Only Ethical Path Is To Stop Using The Atmosphere As A Waste Dump For Greenhouse Gas Pollution’

by Tom Perriello and Richard Caperton

Yesterday, Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney revealed that underneath his tough talk on China, he is ready to concede the clean energy race and future jobs to America’s competitors. A broadside of misleading attack ads from his campaign and his supporters at Crossroads GPS betray a bipartisan consensus on investing in competitiveness and not resting until America wins the jobs of the future.

If the ads are any indication, a Romney administration would willingly cede American leadership in critical industries of the future to our competitors abroad. For more than two centuries, the U.S. government has made smart investments in strategically important industries such as agriculture, transportation, telecommunications, and energy—investments that have allowed American businesses and entrepreneurs to get ahead. Now is not the time to knee-cap American workers and American innovation. International competition in the industries of the future is stronger than ever—and the winners are in countries that are leading, not following.

China in particular labels clean energy as a “strategic emerging industry” and is investing tens of billions of dollars in this industry every year. The green in China’s focus is not just about the environment—it is also about their bottom line. While the Solyndra bankruptcy here in the United States was unfortunate, it would be a serious mistake to prematurely admit defeat in the race to creating a clean energy future here at home. Even an independent review conducted by Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) national finance chair found that the Department of Energy program poses very low risk to taxpayers. Romney and Karl Rove—the founder of Crossroads GPS—are attacking public investments in clean energy at the same time the Chinese government is pouring billions into renewable energy. Future generations will judge us not by particular failures but by our ultimate success in the energy race.

Here are the key facts about global economic competitiveness in clean energy:

• By 2020 clean energy will be one of the world’s biggest industries, totaling as much as $2.3 trillion. Of the seven strategic emerging industries identified by China’s State Council as focal points for government investment in economic growth, five are related to the clean energy economy.
• Ernst and Young ranks China as “the most attractive country in the world to invest in renewable energy.”
• “Investors have spent nearly $100 billion on renewable energy in China in the last two years, far outpacing the United States,” according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, referring to 2010 and 2011.
• Every Group of 8, or G-8, developed nation besides Russia has made significant government investments in renewable energy, and the countries with the most stable government commitments are leading the industry forward.

Is clean energy a good investment for America? The program supporting Solyndra began under former President George W. Bush and was carried out by President Barack Obama’s team at the Department of Energy. Here are the facts of the matter:

• For every $100 the government lends or guarantees, the program only costs taxpayers 94 cents.
• The Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee program drove renewable investment. Thirty-four CEO’s wrote this past year that, “This program has already proven its ability to deliver: It has committed more than $26 billion in loans and loan guarantees to projects that represent $42 billion in investment in our still struggling U.S. economy. These investments represent an estimated 58,000 direct and indirect jobs across 19 states.”

The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee program shows how the government manages risk for taxpayers. Today’s attack ads rely on error-filled reporting from CBS News and claim that taxpayers are going to lose billions of dollars from the program. In fact, the Congressional Research Service, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, and—most importantly—an independent review led by Sen. John McCain’s national finance chair all found that the program poses very low risk to taxpayers, and that the risk has been properly accounted for.

Amid Romney’s attacks, solar energy is “flourishing” in his home state of Massachusetts, and a small businessman in Iowa recently condemned the attacks on the wind industry by Romney and his oil industry backers. But the larger point is this: We can’t give up in the clean energy economy yet. The United States didn’t expect the Apollo project to reach the moon in its first year and didn’t abandon the program when it had setbacks. We didn’t stop investing and engaging the government in an industry that has now continued to work in partnership with the private sector. Throughout history we have tackled hard projects before—as a nation we don’t shirk from tough problems when the work gets tough.

These political attack ads may make for good sound bites, but Romney’s call to take the United States out of the clean energy game threatens industries and jobs in a new clean energy economy that other nations are racing to claim. Waving the white flag of surrender by proposing to kill the public-private investments in clean energy that are required to compete today means former Massachusetts Gov. Romney would seriously damage our economic competitiveness if elected. Leading the strategy to outcompete China is not a matter of campaign rhetoric but of the conviction to see this economic race for clean energy through to victory.

Tom Perriello is the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Richard W. Caperton is Director of Clean Energy Investment at the Action Fund. This piece was originally published at the Center for American Progress Action Fund site.

A crowded encampment on Everest.

Mount Everest has become a microcosm for the rest of the planet. Once an isolated place for adventurers, the mountain is now extremely crowded, polluted, and facing dramatic changes as global temperatures rise.

As commercial climbing outfits have blossomed over the last two decades, more and more climbers are flocking to Everest. The overcrowding problem became clear earlier this month when the mountain was clogged by a traffic jam of roughly 150 people trying to reach the summit — contributing to the death of four climbers.

The traffic jam made big news. But a couple weeks before the incident, another major event took place on the mountain that only got attention from within the climbing community.

Russell Brice, head of the leading Everest climbing operation Himalayan Experience, announced that he would pull his team off Everest, citing unprecedented temperatures that made climbing too dangerous. Heeding advice from experienced Sherpas worried about the warmth, Brice decided to cancel his 2012 expedition because of unstable ice.

In a blog post, Brice’s crew explained the decision:

• Already at the beginning of the season, the Sherpas were saying that it was too warm when they were setting up base camp. They were working in T-shirts.
• Our Sherpas continuously reported that the icefall is more dangerous and the ‘popcorn area’ is more active this year. They were not worried about taking the risk but they were very aware of the increased hazards.
• In 2011, this risk of the looming seracs on the West Ridge was more acceptable as the debris fell into the Bergschrund, a deep crevasse between the glacier and the mountain. Then we were about 100m away from where debris was falling, however, this year the Bergschrund is filled and there is no protection at all. The route has dropped off and now we are only 25m to 30m away from debris, which is constantly covering the route.
• When we first arrived at base camp at the beginning of April, the crack in the ice block on the West Ridge was pretty small – now it is probably between 5 and 7 metres wide. This means that the pressure within the ice blocks is huge. So far, we only had small pieces come down, however, there is certainly the potential for a huge collapse, which could kill and injure a large number of people.
• We have been recording the temperature at 2am when the Sherpas are usually leaving to go through the icefall. There have only been a few days when it was colder than -10 C, which is unusual and not really cold enough to be moving through the icefall
• Now, it is only the beginning of May and lakes are forming at base camp. Today, on 8^th May, it is as warm as it is normally at the end of the season and it will only get warmer, which means the danger in the icefall will increase.

This is not the first warning sign for climbers on Everest. Apa Sherpa, a Nepali “super sherpa” who has been up Everest more than 20 times, has expressed deep concern for the changes he’s seen on Everest over the last two decades.

“In 1989 when I first climbed Everest there was a lot of snow and ice but now most of it has just become bare rock. That, as a result, is causing more rockfalls which is a danger to the climbers,” he recently told AFP News in an interview.

In 2011, the International Center for Integrated Mountain Development issued an assessment of glaciers in the Himalayas, finding that glaciers in the region have declined by 21 percent over the last 30 years.

Increasingly unstable ice and rock are making Everest ascents more dangerous. Greg Paul, a climber with Himalayan Experience, explained the decision to abandon the mountain this year: “Russell [Brice] expects an accident of catastrophic proportions to possibly [sic] hit the icefall.”