If only we could have changed the weather. We hope Mother Nature is nicer to us next year, hopefully delivering less rain and more sunshine.

In addition, waffles are on the hit list, as supplies of Eggos are disappearing. “Heavy rains that soaked Atlanta last month knocked out Kellogg’s waffle operations,” ABC News reported on Tuesday. September’s epic flooding actually exacerbated a shutdown caused by an earlier virulent outbreak of the deadly bacteria Listeria monocytogenes. Kellogg’s initially only referred to the food poisoning threat as “equipment issues,” preferring to let global boiling take the blame.

Unfortunately, we have changed the weather.

“2009 continues to climb up the rainiest-years-ever chart” in Illinois. This year’s rainfall in Peoria of 49.34 inches — 50 percent above normal — has already exceeded the total of 2008, itself 25 percent above normal. With only six more inches of precipitation, 2009 will break the record rainfall set in 1990.

Similarly, the September 21st flood in Atlanta, Georgia “was worse than what’s statistically projected to happen once every 100 years — even worse than every 500 years.” It was “extremely rare”, “epic” and so “stunning”, the U.S. Geological Survey says the “flood has defied its attempts to define it.”

This kind of extreme precipitation is part of the changes to our climate wrought by global warming, which increases the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold and changes circulation patterns. As the U.S. Global Change Program reported in June, 2009 on the impacts of climate change in the Midwest and the Southeast:

– In the Midwest, both summer and winter precipitation have been above average for the last three decades, the wettest period in a century. The Midwest has experienced two record-breaking floods in the past 15 years.

– According to climate models, precipitation in the Midwest is projected to increase in winter and spring, and to become more intense throughout the year.

– In the Southeast, average autumn precipitation has increased by 30 percent for the region since 1901. There has been an increase in heavy downpours in many parts of the region.

Watch it:

Join an action today.

1: “Wood notes that the most authoritative literature on the subject suggests a rise of about one and a half feet by 2100…” I had thought that the most authoritative estimates suggest a 1 to 7 feet rise in sea levels by 2100–not 1.5 feet. Am I wrong?

“Most authoritative” is a value judgment, of course. If we consider literature that was reviewed and summarized by the 2007 International Panel on Climate Change report (AR4) as the “most authoritative,” then the climate models considered there provide estimates of sea level rise of 0.18 – 0.59 m (0.59 – 1.93 ft), depending on future emissions and “excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow.” [IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group 1, Summary for Policymakers, 2007]

However, that exclusion is a major caveat, and all the literature on “dynamical changes in ice flow” points to a much higher estimate for likely sea level rise by 2100. The MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change has found that the likelihood of warming of 4°C is almost 100 percent without efforts to limit carbon dioxide emissions. At the 4 Degrees and Beyond climate conference this September, lead climate researchers presented their latest estimates of sea level rise for 2100 given 4°C warming. Pier Vallinga summarized recent estimates of sea level rise under warm scenarios:

40 – 85 cm [KNMI, 2006]
50 – 140 cm [Rahmstorf, 2007]
40 – 140 cm [Delta Vision, Blue Ribbon Task Force California, 2007]
80 – 200 cm [Pfeffer et al., 2008]
60 – 110 cm [Vellinga et al., 2008]

These estimates give a range of 0.4 to 2 m (1.31 to 6.56 ft), on average estimating 0.95 m (3.1 ft). It should be noted that sea level rise by 2200 will be about twice that of 2100, as the oceans continue to rise due to thermal expansion and the disintegration of the Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets. In short, Wood is only off by a factor of 100 percent.

2: “Ken Caldeira… mentions a most surprising environmental scourge: trees…” I grant that covering the reflective Greenland ice sheet with green leaves might not be a good idea. But surely Ken Caldeira of Stanford did not say that your average tree is doing less to cool the earth by sucking up carbon dioxide than if the tree were cut down and decomposed and some other more-reflective typical use were made of its spot, is he?

In a word, no. In a 2007 New York Times op-ed discussing his research and opinions on forestation and climate change mitigation, Caldeira wrote:

This effect is most pronounced in snowy areas — snow on bare ground reflects far more sunlight back to space than does a snowed-in forest — so forests in areas with seasonal snow cover can be strongly warming. In contrast, tropical forests appear to be doubly valuable to the earth’s climate system. [New York Times, 1/16/07]

He also noted: “Clear-cutting mountains to slow climate change is, of course, nuts.”

Doug Elmendorf, CBO

Yesterday, Doug Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Senate energy committee about the “comparatively modest” cost of a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon pollution. The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal blared “Congressional Budget Chief Says Climate Bill Would Cost Jobs” and “Cap-and-Trade Would Slow Economy, CBO Chief Says.” Conservatives leapt on the reports to cheer the “end” of “cap-and-tax.”

Of course, Elmendorf’s testimony is nothing new. Elmendorf warned that jobs in the fossil fuel industry would be lost, and that overall GDP growth would be slowed by less than one percent by 2020. No one is arguing that there won’t be a shift from pollution-based industries to clean-energy industries. But doing so will create millions more jobs than are lost, as energy companies invest in American workers instead of foreign oil and mountaintop removal. The effect on GDP is within the margin of error of future estimates of growth. Even pessimistic studies by the National Association of Manufacturers find that U.S. GDP will increase by $9 trillion with limits on carbon pollution.

What upset me, however, was the portion of Elmendorf’s testimony that was not reported. Although he recognized that his estimates do not take into account the economic impacts of climate change, he testified that the changes that scientists call “catastrophic” would be barely noticeable in the U.S. economy:

Most of the economy involves activities that are not likely to be directly affected by changes in climate. Moreover, researchers generally expect the growth in the U.S. economy over the coming century to be concentrated in sectors — such as information technology and medical care — that are relatively insulated from climate effects. Damages are therefore likely to be a smaller share of the future economy than they would be if they occurred today. As a consequence, a relatively pessimistic estimate for the loss in projected real gross domestic product is about 3 percent for warming of about 7° Fahrenheit (F) by 2100. [Dale W. Jorgenson et al., 2004]

Elmendorf goes on to cite Nordhaus & Boyer (2000) to claim “the risk of catastrophic outcomes associated with about 11°F of warming by 2100″ gives a projected “loss equivalent to about 5 percent of U.S. output and, because of substantially larger losses in a number of other countries, a loss of about 10 percent of global output.” (By way of comparison, US GDP collapsed by nearly 50 percent during the Great Depression.)

This is frighteningly nonsensical. The CBO is arguing that the collapse of the national electricity grid, water supply, food system, and physical infrastructure from heat waves, desertification, disease outbreaks, wildfires, floods, and catastrophic storms would barely affect the national economy. In fact, seven to 11° F (4 to 6°C) warming would lead to unimaginable changes in our planet by 2100:

– One to three billion people around the world exposed to “increased water stress” (aka drought)

– More than 40 percent of the world’s species go extinct

– Widespread coral reef mortality

– Terrestrial biosphere becomes a net carbon source

– Productivity of cereal grains decreases in low, mid, and high latitudes

– Sea level rise of 0.6 – 1.3 meters (2 to 4 feet)

– About 35 percent of global coastal wetlands are lost

– Twenty percent of world’s population exposed to increased floods

– About 20 percent of arable land disappears (same amount becomes arable in previously frozen north)

– Arctic warms by 27°F

The effects in the United States would be similarly disastrous:

— heat waves of greater than 90° six months of the year in Texas, Florida, Arizona, southern California

– 5-month heat waves in California interior, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina

– 4-month heat waves in Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, North Carolina

– 4-month heat waves greater than 100° in Texas, Arizona, southern California

– 3-month heat waves greater than 100° in Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, California interior

– 2 to 3-month heat waves everywhere in US except New England, northern Great Lakes, and the mountains, Pacific NW coast

– 1 to 2 months of greater than 100° everywhere except New York-New England, northern Great Lakes, mountains, Pacific NW coast

– 40 percent less precipitation in the Southwest

– Dust Bowl returns to Midwest

– Smog levels throughout summer above 10 ppb all across country

– Pollen count doubles again to four times pre-industrial levels

– Doubling of large wildfires in the West, as aspen and lodgepole pine disappear completely

– Tripling of coastal damage from storms

– Inundation of 10,000 square miles of U.S. land, including 25 to 80 percent of coastal wetlands

Texas and California, our top agricultural states, are already suffering from unprecedented heat and drought. Under 7 to 11°F warming, they would no longer be able to support agriculture. Corn crops start failing at above 90 degree weather, and soybean fails above 100 degrees. There would be no snow, maple, or cranberry industries in New England. The economists’ argument is that since the U.S. agriculture industry only represents about three percent of GDP, its total devastation would be hardly noticeable.

The above figures are actually misleading, because these are just the effects estimated under 4°C warming, not the even more unimaginable 6°C. Scientists are now warning that our current emissions levels may lead to 4°C warming by the 2070s.

It should also be noted that this kind of catastrophic warming would guarantee the long-term collapse of the Greenland and west Antarctica ice sheets, leading to sea level rise of over 12 meters (39 feet) in about 300 to 1000 years. But hey, I guess economists would argue that would spur growth in the floating-city industries.

I’m gonna show you the facts over the last two years. California has been very, very dry. Why is that the case? Well, whenever the Pacific Ocean starts cooling, and the global temperatures start to cool, California gets dry. You see this ocean temperature presentation, all this cold water off California means the air sinks over top of California. When it sinks, it dries out, so global cooling is actually a cause of drought in California, which by the way is a dry climate naturally.

Watch it:

The upswelling of cold waters in the eastern Pacific, known as La Nina events (the opposite of El Nino events), is certainly a factor in California’s epic drought and unprecedented wildfires. However, what Bastardi fails to mention is that temperatures have also been unusually warm during the present drought, despite the cold La Nina airmass:

California Temperatures During La Nina Droughts

Previous events during 1949, 1954, 1964, 1970, 1973, 1975, 1988, 1995, 1998

Bastardi’s claim of “global cooling” is completely unsubstantiated. Even with the upwelling of cold water during the La Nina cycle, average ocean temperatures during the “cool” years of 2006-2008 were higher than any year before 1997. It has been the warmest decade for both ocean and land temperatures in recorded history. This summer, the La Nina event was replaced by its counterpart, El Nino, and average sea surface temperatures are now at their highest in recorded history.

Bastardi also showed a graph he purported was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s forecast for global temperatures to “go up, up, up” against actual temperatures “over the last 10 years” supposedly “coming down”:

Fake IPCC Chart Claims ‘Global Cooling’

In July, O’Reilly mocked “hard core right-wingers who don’t believe in global warming even though the temperature shows that the earth has warmed in the last 30 years, three times faster than the previous hundred,” saying, “you don’t debate that.” Evidently, he’s changed his mind.

Transcript:

O’REILLY: Unresolved problems segment tonight. The Obama administration believes that climate change is a front line issue, that global warming must be addressed. That pleases groups like Greenpeace who are now saying the wildfires in California are spreading quicker because of climate change. We invited Greenpeace on. First they said, “Yeah, we will come on,” and suddenly changed their minds and ran away. Joining us from State College, PA is Accuweather guy Joe Bastardi, who thinks Greenpeace wildife theory is wrong. What is going on with Greenpeace? Why didn’t they show up tonight? And is there anything to their wildfire-spreading-quickly theory?

BASTARDI: I don’t want to disparage them. They have done some good things. In this case their house of cards goes up in smoke when you compare it to the foundation of fact. I’m gonna show you the facts over the last two years. California has been very, very dry. Why is that the case? Well, whenever the Pacific Ocean starts cooling, and the global temperatures start to cool, California gets dry. You see this ocean temperature presentation, all this cold water off California means the air sinks over top of California. When it sinks, it dries out, so global cooling is actually a cause of drought in California, which by the way is a dry climate naturally.

And to prove to you that the globe is actually cooling, if you look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, their forecast was for temperatures to go up, up, up. Over the last 10 years you can see in an up and down manner they are coming down. So, there’s no question about the fact over at least the last 10 years it’s cooling.

O’REILLY: Okay. Why is the global warming movement so successful throughout the world?

BASTARDI: Well, I think people haven’t been confronted with the facts. You know, I don’t ask people to believe me. I ask people to go and arm themselves and build the facts for themselves. go look for the facts themselves. The biggest secret behind all of this is right up my alley with the tropics. You see, while the earth was supposed to be warming a little bit, the atmosphere over the tropics was supposed to really be warming up quite a bit. This is up to 30 to 50,000 feet. That would trap warmth underneath and what has actually been happening? Nada. And consequently, an inconvenient truth is tropical cyclone energy is down to record low levels not record high levels. You have to look globally.

O’REILLY: Your stats are very solid, which is why we put you on the program. But this big industry, and the president of the United States is on board on the industry, Al Gore has made $100 million from it. I don’t understand why so many people around the world just buy it. They just — like Greenpeace comes out and says okay, the California wildfires, terrible, are spreading faster because of global warming. You say that’s bull, that there is no science to back that up. I will submit to you, Joe, millions of people believe Greenpeace. They don’t even care about the data!

BASTARDI: Well, that’s a problem in society today. You’re a historian. You know the facts. You have to go back and look.

For instance, let’s take the hurricanes. Hurricanes are stronger now. Oh, is that so? How were we measuring hurricanes out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico back in 1920, 1930? When you look at a hurricane now, it’s like we have a patient tied to an IC unit. We’re constantly monitoring every single second. If you look at the strength of landfalling hurricanes, for instance, they’re no different than what they were 30, 40, 100 years ago. In fact the 1944 hurricane up along the Eastern seaboard — 600-mile-wide diameter of hurricane force winds — drove the boardwalk in Atlantic City back to Baltic Avenue.

The point of the matter is look at the history, look at the facts, go arm yourself, and then you make the call yourself.

O’REILLY: All right. That’s why Greenpeace didn’t come on the show. They knew you had the facts and they didn’t.

Our guest blogger is Tom Kenworthy, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

For residents of the western United States — including California, which is fighting at least eight fires right now — a 1-degree rise in average spring and summer temperatures could mean a staggering increase in the extent and cost of fires, according to a recent study. In their report, researchers at Headwaters Economics, an independent nonprofit research group in Bozeman, MT, predict that climate change and the accelerating movement of western residents to areas near or in undeveloped forests will likely prove to be a devastating combination. The area burned by seasonal fires in Montana will increase by more than 300 percent and more than double the cost of protecting homes threatened by fire:

While fire prone lands are being developed, the climate is warming, leading to more large fires. . . . More development in these sensitive areas would lead to more wildfire suppression costs, even in the absence of climate change. Climate change will only exacerbate this effect.

Though the Headwaters paper focuses on Montana, using data from 18 large fires in the state during 2006 and 2007, it has implications for fire-prone areas throughout the Rocky Mountain West. And it builds on a growing body of evidence that inaction on climate change will cost the western United States dearly.

Earlier this summer, for example, Harvard University scientists published a study in the Journal of Geophysical Research predicting that areas burned by wildfires in the West could increase by 50 percent by 2050, with even larger increases of 75 percent to 175 percent in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain West. Those increases could have “large impacts on human health” because of the added smoke and particulates released into the air, the study said.

Since 2000, wildland fires in the United States have burned an average of more than 7 million acres a year, about double the average acreage for the previous four decades. Federal firefighting costs have also risen dramatically, according to the Government Accountability Office, averaging $2.9 billion per year from fiscal 2001-2005 compared to $1.1 billion in the previous five-year period, and “the majority of [Forest Service] large fire suppression costs are directly linked to protecting private property” in the wildland-urban interface, where new development is increasingly popular.

And in recent years, a widespread and so far unchecked epidemic of mountain pine beetles that has killed millions of acres of trees from Colorado north into Canada has laid the foundation for a potentially large increase in catastrophic fires. Climate change has played a role in that outbreak, too, as warmer winters spare the beetles from low temperatures that would normally kill them off, and drought stresses trees.

In the western United States, mountain pine beetles have killed some 6.5 million acres of forest. As large as that path of destruction is, it’s dwarfed by the 35 million acres killed in British Columbia, which has experienced a rash of forest fires this summer that as of early this month had burned more than 155,000 acres. In the United States to date about 5.2 million acres — an area larger than Massachusetts — have burned this year.

Destruction of trees by the mountain pine beetle, combined with climate change and fire, makes for a dangerous feedback loop. Dead forests sequester less carbon dioxide. Burning forests release lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. More carbon dioxide adds to climate change, which raises temperatures, stresses forests, and makes more and bigger fires more likely. It’s a frightening prospect, as British Columbia’s Forests Minister Pat Bell told an International Energy Agency conference last week:

I am not a doomsayer, I am not one who wants to say we are beyond the tipping point. But I am afraid that we are getting close to that.

Read more at the Center for American Progress.

Global warming is one of the gravest health emergencies facing humanity today. It’s life threatening, it’s affecting us now, and if we don’t take bold and effective action, it could dramatically affect how we life on earth.

“More Extreme Heat Waves: Global Warming’s Wake Up Call,” jointly issued by PSR and the National Wildlife Federation, explains that scientists have found that global boiling will disproportionately threaten the health of the very old and very young, as well as the poor and those who live in big cities:

Global Warming Will Bring More Extreme Heat Waves. As the United States warms another 4 to 11°F on average over the next century, we will have more extremely hot summer days. Every part of the country will be affected. Urban areas will feel the heat more acutely because asphalt, concrete, and other structures absorb and reradiate heat, causing temperature to be as much as 10°F higher than nearby rural areas.

Urban Air Pollution Will Be Exacerbated By More Extreme Heat. Warm, sunny conditions accelerate the formation of ground-level ozone, a major component of smog. Even if air pollution is improved, as required by the Clean Air Act, global warming could mean an extra 10 parts per billion (ppb) of ozone during heat waves in the Midwest and Northeast, forcing some cities to take even more aggressive steps to meet the 75 ppb ozone standard.

Heat Waves Disproportionately Impact The Most Vulnerable. Heat waves disproportionately affect the very old and very young, as well as people who are poor, have asthma or heart disease, or live in big cities. With often diminished health and a greater likelihood of living alone, the elderly are especially vulnerable. As the U.S. demographics shift toward an older and more urban population, efforts to protect these at-risk communities from extreme heat will become increasingly important.

Natural Habitats And Agriculture Are Also Vulnerable To Extreme Heat. More extreme temperatures are already pushing wildlife and their habitats beyond their normal tolerance levels. Heat-related declines have been documented for wild salmon and trout, moose, and pika. Livestock and crops have lower productivity and increased mortality associated with heat stress and drought.

We Can Reduce The Severity Of Heat Waves And Their Impacts On Vulnerable People. Curbing global warming pollution as much and as quickly as possible is an essential first step. Shifting to clean solar energy is an especially promising option because sunlight is plentiful during heat waves, when electricity demand for air conditioning peaks. At the same time, we must make our cities cooler and greener; for example, introducing more green space — parks, trees, and “green” roofs — can greatly reduce the urban heat island effect. Furthermore, cities must implement public health measures to reduce the impact of extreme heat that we can not avoid.

Because blacks are disproportionately urban and poor, the rising tide of heat waves will affect them more severely than the U.S. white population. As NAACP’s president Benjamin Todd Jealous explained, “Climate change is a civil rights issue.”

The rising tide of climate change — the catastrophic droughts in Texas and California, the heat waves in Louisiana and Nebraska, the storms across the High Plains and the Midwest, the floods in North Dakota and Minnesota — require action. Instead, both Democratic and Republican senators are arguing that a limit on carbon pollution would be too costly for farmers:

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA): “No farmers will escape the effect of this bill.” [Senate agriculture hearing, 7/22/09]

Jim Inhofe (R-OK): “I had the opportunity of going and talking to the national farm co-ops the other day and addressed to them if we were to pass the cap-and-trade system what that would do to my folks in Oklahoma and all of America . . . It would be disastrous for our farmers in America.” [Senate floor, 7/15/09]

Mike Johanns (R-NE): “The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill would have a significant if not severe impact on agriculture. . . . Different studies come up with varied numbers but they all paint the same picture: agriculture loses.” [Senate floor, 7/20/09]

Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): “I just worry if you’ve taken the kind of look at USDA at the potential impact of the house legislation on the food processing industry and the disproportionate costs on that industry that could lead to really high, higher food prices in these difficult economic times.” [Senate agriculture hearing, 7/22/09]

Ben Nelson (D-NE): “I’m concerned that if this is going to be the approach that is taken, that it be the most benign approach to balancing the economy and the environment. It’s not just agriculture, it’s people turning on their lights and businesses as well.” [Senate agriculture hearing, 7/22/09]

John Thune (R-SD): “They’re worried about the EPA regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and what that would mean for the future of the production of agriculture.” [Senate agriculture hearing, 7/22/09]

The effort to filibuster clean energy legislation means that a minority of senators can block the effort to preserve the livelihood of farmers in America. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) have committed to cloture — standing against the filibuster. The rest of the senators need to join them.

There’s something about the Endangered Species Act that brings out the worst kind of demagoguery on the right. Doubly so when climate change is involved.

Ever since the battle over the Tellico Dam and the snail darter in Tennessee in the 1970’s, the right has consistently fallen back on the same old, tired, and inaccurate construct: it’s always a tiny fish (or useless bird, or obscure snail) that is destroying jobs and threatening the economy.

The latest example has been unfolding over the past few months in California, where a three-year drought is being mis-characterized as a “manmade drought” brought on by federal efforts to protect an endangered fish, the delta smelt, in compliance with a 2007 court decision. Reductions in irrigation water deliveries by state and federal water projects to protect a 3-inch fish, scream the commentators and lawmakers, are crippling agriculture in the state’s Central Valley and throwing tens of thousands of people out of work.

“Because of this little fish, up to 80,000 people are going to lose jobs,” caterwauled Sean Hannity on Fox in mid-May. “This is madness.”

There’s madness out there all right, but it has a lot more to do with degradation of the Pacific coast’s largest estuary, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, climate change, mismanagement of the state’s water resources, and the right’s inability to look at the facts than it does with protecting a small fish.

Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, punctures some of the myths surrounding the California drought in a blog posting that shows Central Valley farmers are getting lots more water than is commonly reported, that the jobs impact has been overstated, and that the smelt is not to blame.

As Gleick notes, a couple of weeks before Beck’s tirade, the head of California’s Department of Water Resources said that if the Endangered Species Act didn’t exist there would only be a five percent increase in water deliveries to farmers. “If the ESA goes away this afternoon, we still have a drought,” said Lester Snow.

The delta smelt is a handy whipping boy for the likes of Rep. Devin Nunes, who has tried to suspend the ESA to prevent what he calls a “government imposed dust bowl.” But the smelt is only a symptom of the collapse of one of America’s most important ecosystems, a collapse that has been building for decades and affects not just the smelt, but salmon, steelhead and about 750 other species of fish, birds and animals – 18 of which are designated as threatened or endangered by the state and federal governments.

“Until we address the underlying issues plaguing California’s water supply system we will see dry conditions continuing to have disproportionate impacts such as we are experiencing in the current year,” wrote Snow in a May 15 letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Among those underlying issues, noted Snow, is climate change.

In congressional testimony this spring, California’s secretary of natural resources Mike Chrisman also cited global warming as an important ingredient in the state’s current water crisis. “Climate change brings an additional layer of uncertainty to these complex water supply issues,” he said.

Rep. Nunes and others who find it convenient to blame the delta smelt might want to take a look at the recently released report on climate change impacts by the U.S. Global Change Research Program. “Over the last 50 years, there have been widespread temperature related reductions in snowpack in the West, with the larges reductions occurring in lower elevation mountains in the Northwest and California where snowfall occurs at temperatures close to the freezing point,” noted the report, which projected further snow runoff reductions in coming years. That may be the real man-made drought.

Nunes and 16 of his colleagues in California’s House delegation who complained of a “regulatory drought,” also might want to re-think their votes on the American Clean Energy and Security Act on June 26. Only one of them voted for the landmark legislation tackling climate change and energy security.

If that’s too heavy a lift, they might want to look at a recent report by the Pacific Institute, “Sustaining California Agriculture in an Uncertain Future.” It outlines how more efficient irrigation and water management practices could save up to 6 million acre-feet of water, 20 times what has been set aside for the delta smelt.

Farmers and those in the agriculture economy have a lot to lose if the trends in billion-dollar weather disasters continue — particularly when it comes to drought and water shortages, as recent news indicates. “Central and South Texas are in the midst of an epic drought that has sapped soils of their moisture, dried up stock ponds and turned cornfields from green to beige.” California’s “Central Valley farmers will receive an additional 100,000 acre-feet as part of a water loan to deal with the three-year drought plaguing the state.” As the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee begins hearing testimony this week on climate change legislation, “Billion Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters” — a catalog of 90 costly weather-related disasters dating back to 1980 assembled by the National Climatic Data Center — is a good place to start when considering the costs of inaction on global warming:

– In 2007, a severe drought with extreme heat across the Great Plains and the East brought some $5 billion in damages and costs. Wildfires in the West that same year cost more than $1 billion.

– In 2006, widespread drought affected the Great Plains, the south, and the far west, costing about $6 billion.

– In 2002, a broad drought cost $10 billion, affecting large parts of 30 states from the West to the Great Plains and much of the East. Western wildfires associated with the drought cost $2 billion.

– In 2000, a drought and heat wave centered on the south central and southeastern United States caused 140 deaths and cost $4 billion.

– In 1999, An eastern drought and heat wave brought “extensive agricultural losses” of more than $1 billion and cost 502 lives.

– In 1998, “Very severe losses to agriculture and related industries” accompanied a drought affecting the central and eastern U.S. with estimated costs of $40 billion and 5,000 to 10,000 deaths.

The House’s narrow approval of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 on June 26 came only after House leaders satisfied some of the concerns of farm state lawmakers. Senators, too, will be sensitive to those interests, so it is critical they understand some of the stakes for agriculture if Congress fails to pass comprehensive clean-energy jobs and climate legislation.

Drought and changes in water supply will be one of the main challenges. Over the last half century, the recently released government report “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” says, droughts associated with rising temperatures have become more frequent in much of the Southeast and Western regions of the country. That trend is expected to continue. “In the future, droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe,” particularly in the Southwest, according to the report.

Water shortages will likely affect a whole range of critical economic sectors, from limiting electricity production by nuclear and coal-fired power plants that have high water demands to increasing shipping costs on the Great Lakes and Mississippi River — as happened in 1988 when a drought stranded 4,000 barges on America’s most important commercial waterway. Drier conditions in the West will also increase the extent and cost of wildfires, which have already soared in the last decade.

These events and their impacts are not abstractions. They are costly, disruptive, and affect millions of Americans, including many who make their living raising food and livestock. Few lobbyists for these interests will mention these costly impacts to our already challenged rural economies.

Senators have a responsibility to protect farmers from more and worse droughts even if the farmers’ hired guns won’t.

Read more at the Center for American Progress, and view a map of past and projected droughts at Science Progress.

We’ve just had the biggest floods and coldest winters we’ve ever had. They’re saying to us [that climate change is] going to be a big problem because it’s going to be warmer than it usually is; my farmers are going to say that’s a good thing since they’ll be able to grow more corn.

It is not apparent what farmers Peterson is talking about. As the report explains in its section on the agricultural impacts of climate change, global warming brings not only warmer temperatures but also heavier floods. Despite the relatively cold winter of 2008, over the past thirty years winter temperatures in Peterson’s Minnesota have risen more than 7°F. In fact, floods and higher temperatures associated with global warming have already damaged America’s corn crops, with worse to come:

Analysis of crop responses suggests that even moderate increases in temperature will decrease yields of corn, wheat, sorghum, bean, rice, cotton, and peanut crops.

Responding to Peterson’s argument on a telephone briefing organized by the Center for American Progress, USDA Global Change Program director Bill Hohenstein explained that scientists have estimated that “the effects on the corn yield in the Midwest” from observed changes in temperature and carbon dioxide levels “are a decrease of about 3 percent, not accounting for changes in water availability.” Hohenstein was citing an earlier U.S. Global Change Program report, The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States:

The scientific studies discussed in the report found that very 2°F (1.2°C) increase in temperature caused by global warming reduces corn yields by four percent, offset by the increased productivity from higher carbon dioxide levels for a net decrease of three percent. That’s an annual U.S. corn crop loss of $1.4 billion, $135 million from Peterson’s state of Minnesota alone. Without action, the report warns that U.S. temperatures could rise fivefold by the end of the century. If the damages to corn yields remain consistent, that would lead to a 15 percent reduction in the corn crop, or annual losses of $7 billion in today’s dollars.

This estimate does not take into account the damage to crop yields from extreme precipitation, such as the floods of 2008 that caused around $8 billion in total damage to U.S. farmers. The report Peterson dismissed as being good news for farmers also shows that if no action is taken to halt global warming, the U.S. grain belt could see one to two months of heat waves over 100°F and two to three months of heat waves over 90°F by the end of the century. Corn, by the way, “will fail to reproduce at temperatures above 95°F.”

The report further details the rise in poison ivy and other noxious weeds due to higher carbon dioxide levels and warmer temperatures, the near-certain elimination of regional crops like maple and cranberries by mid-century without action, and the acute threats to America’s livestock production.

Peterson has similarly discounted scientific analyses of the effects of biofuel production while demanding the House leadership make concessions to industrial agriculture in the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454).

Iowa sustained $8 billion to $10 billion in statewide damage from the floods and tornadoes that struck in 2008, according to state estimates. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced $517 million in new community block grants for Iowa last week as part of a $3.7 billion package for 11 states. Iowa’s share will help pay for home buyouts, public works projects, business aid and new flood safeguards as well as other needs. The federal government has now sent more than $3 billion to Iowa since the disasters, Gov. Chet Culver said last week in Cedar Rapids. Culver’s $830 million I-JOBS bonding plan, an effort to create new jobs and upgrade state infrastructure, includes nearly $300 million for flood-related projects that include housing assistance and building repairs at the University of Iowa. Culver also signed a $56 million aid package in February that includes forgivable loans, grants and other assistance for home and business owners. — USA Today

Thousands of flood-damaged homes lie vacant in the core of Cedar Rapids, a city of 120,000 hard hit by June 2008 flooding that inundated towns and farms across the Midwestern United States. “Are we satisfied with that progress? No, clearly not,” Cedar Rapids City Manager Jim Prosser said. “A lot of people whose lives aren’t even close to being whole yet have a lot of unanswered questions, bills to pay, and don’t have the resources to recover.” . . . Some 1,300 property owners in neighborhoods that resemble war zones have asked the government to buy them out, but the city cannot act until funding arrives. — Reuters

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shawn Donovan, who was in Cedar Rapids this week, promised that the Obama administration would work to streamline the bureaucratic process. He also announced $500 million in new federal flood recovery funds for Iowa. Some of that money will go toward the long-awaited buyouts. But local officials say much more federal funding is needed, and it may take 10 years or more for Cedar Rapids to fully recover. — NPR

Even as some of Iowa’s elected officials, including Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA), still question the need for strong legislation to halt global warming, their state is dealing with the catastrophic costs of weather gone out of control.

A yield loss of three percent of the U.S. corn crop due to a rise in temperature of 2 degrees F totals $1.4 billion. Environment America, April 2009.

Farm-belt lawmakers are posing a challenge to passage of clean-energy legislation in Congress, but torpedoing the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) would hurt farmers because harms linked to global warming — including drought, flooding, and other crop damage — would continue unabated. House Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson (D-MN) has threatened to bring down the entire green economy legislation if he doesn’t get his way on the renewable fuel standards and jurisdiction in the agriculture committee:

If they don’t want to change it, they’ll have to find the votes some other place. In my district a “no” vote would be a good vote.

Without congressional action on climate change legislation, global greenhouse gas emissions would continue to rise and the impacts on agriculture would grow. The link between global warming and extreme weather events is evident, and research predicts that the trend will intensify in coming decades:

Heatwaves, Extreme Storms, And Droughts Will Increase In Frequency And Intensity. Changes in extreme weather are “among the most serious challenges to society in coping with a changing climate,” a 2008 federal report indicated. In the future, the report predicts, “With continued global warming, heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to further increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity.” [U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2008]

Climate Disasters Have Increased Sixfold Since The 1950s. An insurance company database showed that weather-related disasters have increased sixfold since the 1950s, compared to only a slight increase in non-weather disasters. At a meeting of climate and insurance experts in 2006, “delegates reached a cautious consensus: Climate change is helping to drive the upward trend in catastrophes.” A Government Accountability Office investigation in 2007 found that private and government insurers including the federal crop and flood insurance programs paid out more than $320 billion for weather-related losses between 1980 and 2005. [Nature, 6/2006; GAO, 5/3/2007]

The 1988 And 1993 Midwest Climate Disasters Caused $79 Billion In Damages Alone. Not only are the costs of climate disasters high, they come in the form of unpredictably catastrophic events. A report in 2000 by Harvard Medical School’s Center for Health and the Global Environment found that extreme weather events have “caused severe crop damage and have exacted a significant economic toll for U.S. farmers over the past 20 years” and “could rise significantly due to greater climate variability, and to increases in insects, weeds, and plant diseases.” Total damages — including agricultural losses — from the 1988 drought and 1993 Midwest floods were $79 billion. In the future, “variability of precipitation — in time, space, and intensity — will make U.S. agriculture increasingly unstable and make it more difficult for U.S. farmers to plan what crops to plan and when.” [Harvard Medical School’s Center for Health and the Global Environment, 5/2000]

Crop Losses To Rise To Billions A Year, Doubling By The 2030s. Crop losses insured by the federal government have also risen substantially in the past two decades, due to higher participation by farmers, rising crop prices, and big loss years like 2008, when the federal program paid out nearly $8.6 billion, much of it because of flooding in the Midwest. Looking just at increased soil moisture that comes with higher precipitation driven by climate change, authors of a study published in 2002 by Global Environmental Change estimated that the roughly $1.5 billion per year in crop damage could double by the 2030s. And an April report by Environment America found that U.S. corn growers could face annual losses of $1.4 billion due to future climate change, looking just how higher temperatures reduce yields. [USDA Risk Management Agency; Global Environmental Change, 11/15/2002; Environment America, 4/2009]

Return Of The Dust Bowl? A 2007 report cites a potential agricultural loss of as much as $10 billion by 2090 in the Edwards Aquifer region of Texas, and productivity losses exceeding 50 percent for wheat and soybeans in the southern and Great Plains regions. Other research predicts that the American Southwest will by mid-century face extremely difficult choices between supplying water for agriculture and the region’s booming cities. A study reported in Science in April 2007 said that a drought similar to conditions during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s could become the norm in the Southwest by 2050. [Center for Integrative Environment Research at the University of Maryland, 10/2007; Science, 4/2007]

In 2007, the Center for Integrative Environment Research at the University of Maryland report, “The U.S. Economic Impacts of Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction,” included a review of previous studies on climate change impacts on agriculture and water for various regions of the United States:

The uneven nature of climate change impacts throughout the country makes the net impacts of global warming on the agricultural sector uncertain . . . Some northern regions are likely to experience fleeting economic benefits with more profitable crops migrating there (as the climate becomes hospitable to those crops.) As climate conditions continue to change, however, those temporary benefits may be lost. Other regions, such as the Southeast, West, and southern Great Plains may face challenges from increased temperatures, water stress, saltwater intrusion, and the potential increase in invasive species and pests — the impacts of which may cause costs to outweigh benefits.

American farmers, like all of us, have a huge stake in the fight to stem global climate change. To hold their future hostage to a rulemaking battle over ethanol would be a grave, shortsighted disservice.

Read an extended version of this post at the Center for American Progress website.

Let’s go to the bill and look at the penalties. Because there are actually civil penalties in this bill. We’re actually creating a global warming police. . . And then further to page 236: “Each day of unlawful occupancy shall be considered a separate violation.” We’re setting up a global warming Gestapo that can literally come in and now this new term, “unlawful occupancy.” Now living in your home is considered unlawful under this bill.

This is ludicrous.

Watch it:

Putting aside Scalise’s inflammatory rhetoric, his understanding of the provision — which would save working families and businesses millions of dollars, create hundreds of thousands of green jobs, and tackle the nation’s biggest source of global warming pollution — is flawed. Scalise ignored the difference between energy efficiency building codes and safety codes. Scalise was also seemly ignorant that the legislation explicitly preserves local building codes that meet or exceed the national standard, while providing federal support for states to implement new standards. Federal enforcement would only take place if states failed to act.

Without irony, Scalise argued that fighting global warming would threaten the health and safety of Lousianans in danger of “hurricanes and flooding” and tornadoes:

Safety and health have always been the main driving factors behind a building code. What this bill does in Section 201, it’s literally taking global warming, and using global warming to trump safety and health. Because now, if I’m in South Louisiana, and I want to rebuild after hurricane damage — which by the way we had 120,000 homes in Louisiana that had more than 50 percent damage due to Hurricane Katrina — under this bill in section 201, when people are rebuilding those 120,000 homes, they would have to follow the federal building code, and in many cases that would mean they can’t use the same types of strength that they might want to use in their windows. They might want to use stronger windows because they don’t want the storm to blow out their windows. But under this bill, a federal standard could say their windows are out of the federal code.

Global warming likely significantly intensified the devastating power of Hurricane Katrina. As the state of Louisana itself has explained, “Coastal Lousiana is more vulnerable to the effects of global climate change than any other region in the United States. Its low elevation, high rate of subsidence and rapid loss of wetlands expose this area to the worst consequences of climatic change — a rising Gulf, possibly stronger storms, unpredictable rainfall and warmer weather.”

Full transcript:

SCALISE: Section 201 of this cap and trade energy tax creates a national building code, something that we don’t have in place today. If you look across the country right now, 30 states have their own state building codes. A number of states actually go even to the local level where they have codes that are based on different cities or different parishes or counties.

Just to use Louisiana, for an example, right after Hurricane Katrina, we — our legislature passed a statewide building code. We didn’t have one before. We created a statewide building code, and we took into account in our code the various segmented differences between regions of our state. In fact, the code is different in South Louisiana where our main threats are hurricanes and flooding, much different than they are in the northern part of the state of Louisiana, where tornados are a bigger threat.

And so if you look at the fact that thirty states have these types of statewide codes, this bill in section 201 creates a federal code that would trump, throw out all of those state building codes that have been worked on for years in many cases. We worked on ours for months, just for our state’s code. Here, with really no debate, we’re creating a federal code that trumps all of the states’ codes and in some cases would actually lower the standards that states have for building.

And if you go back to why we have building codes and why states have done this, the purpose typically is to protect safety and health. Safety and health have always been the main driving factors behind a building code. What this bill does in Section 201, it’s literally taking global warming, and using global warming to trump safety and health. Because now, if I’m in South Louisiana, and I want to rebuild after hurricane damage — which by the way we had 120,000 homes in Louisiana that had more than 50 percent damage due to Hurricane Katrina — under this bill in section 201, when people are rebuilding those 120,000 homes, they would have to follow the federal building code, and in many cases that would mean they can’t use the same types of strength that they might want to use in their windows. They might want to use stronger windows because they don’t want the storm to blow out their windows. But under this bill, a federal standard could say their windows are out of the federal code.

And then what does that mean? Let’s go to the bill and look at the penalties. Because there are actually civil penalties in this bill. We’re actually creating a global warming police. To page 235: “The Secretary may set and collect reasonable inspection fees to cover the costs of inspections required.” So number one, they can come in, the federal government can come in and inspect your house and send you the bill. And if they find that you’re out of compliance with this new federal code, “The Secretary shall assess a civil penalty for violations of this section.” And then further to page 236: “Each day of unlawful occupancy shall be considered a separate violation.” We’re setting up a global warming Gestapo that can literally come in and now this new term, “unlawful occupancy.” Now living in your home is considered unlawful under this bill.

This is ludicrous.

If you go — first of all, let’s go to the U.S. Constitution and look at the tenth amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to states respectively or to the people.” The tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution says the states have the right to do what they’re doing if they’re not prohibited by the Constitution. so states have established building codes. This bill comes in and basically says throw out the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the federal government’s gonna throw out your building code.

I would like to submit the U.S. Constitution into the record, if I can, by unanimous consent so it can be reviewed because I think we also need to go to another section that talks about unlawful occupancy. The only part of the constitution that talks about unlawful occupancy of your home says, in amendment three, “No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house.” So basically, the federal government and the constitution says the protection as a homeowner gives you the ability to determine who comes in your house. Here we’re saying, “Each day of unlawful occupancy shall be considered a separate violation” and you’ll be subject to a federal fine. That’s what this section does.

You’ve got a number of groups that have come out in strong opposition to section 201 and support my amendment. I’d like to read and enter into the record a letter from about nine different organizations including the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, the Building Owners and Managers Association International, the National Apartment Association and a number of others who said, “The proposal creates a new authority for the federal government to police building codes, holds developers and owners of buildings including homeowners liable for not reaching federal energy efficiency mandates, even if the buildings are presumably in compliance with applicable local building codes and establishes a civil penalty for violators of this section of the bill. This measure would have a chilling effect on development and property transfer across the spectrum of real properties.”

Now we’re in a housing slump right now. Why would we want to be passing legislation that creates a federal building code with civil penalties and tells people living in their houses that they’re unlawful occupying that house if they don’t immediate this new federal building code when they’re in compliance with their own state’s federal building code? This is ludicrous. I’ll enter these letters into the record including the one from the National Association of Home Builders which goes further and talks about the legal problems with this, and also the shortfalls, how this would adversely effect homeowners in this country, who would be subject to this global warming police that would be created to come in and drag you out of your house and fine you civilly in federal court because maybe you wanted to protect your family at a higher level than the federal government.

Floods caused by a rapid spring thaw in Alaska have destroyed an entire village and forced evacuations along the length of the Yukon River. Wildfires are burning in drought-ravaged California and Florida. The governors of Alaska, Missouri, West Virginia, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas have declared states of emergency or made disaster declarations for their ravaged states. The National Guard is being deployed in Alaska, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

ALABAMA

A tornado caused damage across two counties in north Alabama last Wednesday, causing “a path of destruction nearly 11 miles long that was up to 75 yards wide in places.”

ALASKA

A record flood of the Yukon River caused by an unusually warm spring thaw “totally destroyed” the village of Eagle. Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) declared a state of emergency on May 6. The “Weather Service still had flooding warnings in place for Stevens Village, Rampart, Tanana and Ruby as of yesterday afternoon.” Alaska Guard personnel “are being dispatched for at least 14 days with trucks carrying clean, potable water for residents in need.”

ARKANSAS

Governor Mike Beebe (D-AR) “has declared 32 Arkansas counties disaster areas from heavy rains and flooding that have hit the state over the past two weeks.” from heavy rains and flooding. Beebe’s declaration “also authorizes $200,000 in individual assistance from the Governor’s Disaster Fund for flood victims in Clark, Dallas, Jefferson, Garland, Lonoke, Miller, Monroe, Phillips, Poinsett and Saline counties.”

CALIFORNIA

30,000 people were ordered to flee a raging Santa Barbara fire that consumed 8,700 acres, “destroyed 78 homes and damaged 22 others.” Costs totaled “more than $12.2 million.” “Global warming and other factors have led to longer fire seasons that now stretch well beyond mid-May to November.”

FLORIDA

“This year alone Florida has already had more than 2,000 wildfires that burned about 56,000 acres.” “A Martin County sheriff’s deputy was injured as wildfires burned more than 1,400 acres near Indiantown, Fla., emergency officials said.”

ILLINOIS

68,000 customers of Ameren Corp. lost power in Friday’s storm in southern Illinois. Gov. Pat Quinn (D-IL) designated six southern Illinois counties “state disaster areas after last week’s deadly storms.” “Eighty-seven-year-old George Arbeiter died after a limb crashed onto his Murphysboro home and hit him on the back of his head, sending him down a flight of stairs.”

KENTUCKY

Gov. Steve Beshear (D-KY) declared an emergency in central and southeastern sections of his state Saturday. On Friday, a tornado killed two people and damaged dozens of homes and structures in the Kirksville community of Richmond in Madison County. “42-year-old Glenda Charbonnel and 35-year old Mike Yarber, died when the trailer they were in was blown into a pond.” A Gilbert firefighter “had a heart attack while providing aid to flood victims.” “More than 100 Kentucky Guard members are helping more than 10,000 citizens left without power” in seven counties.

MISSISSIPPI

“Homes and businesses in 18 counties received damage from the weekend severe weather that brought strong winds, heavy rains and flash flood warnings to much of the state,” including “about 48 homes and a dozen businesses” in Adams County.

MISSOURI

Friday’s “severe storms across southern Missouri” prompted Governor Jay Nixon (D-MO) to declare a state of emergency. “Four deaths and 12 injuries” are blamed on the storm. “Ted Agee, 61, of rural Dallas County was killed when his house was destroyed by high winds. Two other deaths happened in Poplar Bluff, when a tree fell on a car.” 150,000 utility customers lost power.

NORTH CAROLINA

Some “50,000 North Carolina residents were without power Sunday” as crews cleaned up after quick-moving thunderstorms blew through the region. “Straight-line winds as strong as 125 mph snapped trees from Scotland County to Columbus County. Damage appeared heaviest in Robeson County, where at least two homes were destroyed and seven others were damaged ” The extent of the damage “was similar to an EF-2 tornado and winds of a Category 3 hurricane.” A tornado that hit Johnston County last Tuesday “destroyed one home and damaged 18 others,” leaving behind about $1.65 million in damage.

WEST VIRGINIA

“Heavy rain and flooding Friday and Saturday” prompted Gov. Joe Manchin III (D-WV) “to declare a state of emergency in six West Virginia counties and to call up 330 members of the National Guard.” Guard members of the 111th Engineering Brigade “are helping in two of those counties — Mingo and Wyoming – where a steady rainfall combined with a recent thunderstorm has caused mudslides and flooded homes and roads,” destroying at least 300 buildings. Nearly 10,000 Appalachian Power customers in southern West Virginia were without electric service Saturday.

I’m not very interested with having a bunch of folks with a bunch of money get their mitts on trading credits, and have our future and our destiny tied to their interests. I feel very strongly there’s something going on with our climate. We need to be attentive to it, we need to deal with it, but as we do, we have to be smart.

It’s legitimate to have a concern about the regulatory structure of a carbon market, about one-tenth the size of the fossil-fuel commodity markets, and Sen. Dorgan has the expertise to design the legislation. But he seems to be letting a policy detail obscure the real issue — that global warming pollution is completely unregulated, allowing corporate polluters to make astronomical profits while destroying the atmosphere.

This carbon loophole has allowed pollution giants like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, Peabody Coal, and Massey Energy to ravage the planet, sicken our children, and rake in obscene profits for decades. Now, as North Dakota reels from its third extreme flood in as many years, scientists are warning that the climate crisis is outstripping their projections.

Yet Dorgan seems to be confusing political “reality” with actual reality, when he summarily dismissed Vice President Al Gore’s “Repower America” call that “the nation should rely solely on renewable fuels by 2020″:

Not going to happen. Not even close. We need to continue to use our most abundant resource, but to be able to do that, we have to be able to unlock the technology … to decarbonize coal, and we’re going to do that.

Again, Dorgan is missing the forest for the trees. Dorgan is strikingly pessimistic that America can free itself of fossil fuel dependence, even though the sun, wind, and human ingenuity are much more “abundant” resources than coal. Yet he willing to guarantee the success of experimental carbon capture and sequestration technology for coal-fired power plants Of course, a $300 million loan to a North Dakota coal plant for CCS development may help it along. If Dorgan truly wants CCS to happen, he should recognize that the most important thing the government can do is to create a market for clean energy by passing strong cap-and-trade legislation as soon as possible. Unfortunately, his voting record reveals he puts GOP filibusters of clean energy legislation above the security and health of the United States.

The survey, conducted by George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, reveals that Americans are concerned about global warming in the abstract — but perhaps only in the abstract. Just 32 percent of Americans think global warming will harm them “a great deal” or a “a moderate amount” personally. The further we get out from the individual, however, the more impactful people think climate change will tend to be: more impactful on their families than themselves; more impactful on their communities than their families; more impactful on their country than their communities; more impactful than other counties than on the United States; more impactful on future generations than the present one, and finally, more impactful on plants and animals than on humans.

Although Silver’s observation that “advocates of cap-and-trade may need to find ways to personalize the terms of the debate” is quite accurate, his post is accompanied by a misleading infographic. The poll results are presented as an “inverted pyramid,” with global warming impacts affecting “You” just a tiny nub.

538.com’s “Environmental Inverted Pyramid” does not accurately portray the results of the George Mason survey.
538.com’s “Environmental Inverted Pyramid“	Climate Change In The American Mind’s results about perceptions of harm.

When the data is proportionately displayed, the inverted pyramid still exists, but does not as impressively support Silver’s argument that Americans are concerned “only in the abstract”:

Of course, the essential matter is that the American public’s perception of the threat of climate change, after decades of deliberate disinformation from corporate polluters, is disconnected from reality. As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency related in its greenhouse gas endangerment finding this month, the harm from global warming is real and already with us, here in the United States:

The Administrator concludes that, in the circumstances presented here, the case for finding that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger public health and welfare is compelling and, indeed, overwhelming. The scientific evidence described here is the product of decades of research by thousands of scientists from the U.S. and around the world. The evidence points ineluctably to the conclusion that climate change is upon us as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, that climatic changes are already occurring that harm our health and welfare, and that the effects will only worsen over time in the absence of regulatory action. The effects of climate change on public health include sickness and death. It is hard to imagine any understanding of public health that would exclude these consequences. The effects on welfare embrace every category of effect described in the Clean Air Act’s definition of “welfare” and, more broadly, virtually every facet of the living world around us.

John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, told attendees that “significant harm to human well-being is already occurring” from global warming — including agricultural impacts from monsoon changes in China, greater floods “on practically every continent,” increased drought and soil drying, increased wildfires, worse air pollution and heat stress, and timber losses from Alaska to Colorado due to pest explosion — and “worse is yet to come.”

The MIT event is being webcast live.

To deal with global warming progressively requires commitment to progressive values: fairness, opportunity, and honesty. Fairness means that those who have benefited the most from our pollution-based economy bear the greatest responsibility in building a clean energy economy. Opportunity means giving those who have benefited the least hope for a better tomorrow. Honesty means bridging the divide between political reality and actual reality.

In reality, moving to a green economy is necessary to save the planet.

The window for directing this nation on a sustainable path is rapidly closing. The disintegration of the global thermostat –- the Arctic ice cap, the world’s glaciers, the Antarctic ice shelves –- is accelerating. Wide swaths of the world, from Australia to Texas, are in droughts that may be the beginning of permanent desertification. Sea level rise is accelerating. The acidifying oceans are absorbing less carbon dioxide. Increasingly powerful forest fires not only destroy ecosystems but emit stored carbon. Even if global pollution goes down tomorrow, weather disasters, heat waves, hurricanes, floods, the oceans themselves will continue to rise for decades. Global boiling is destroying Tuvalu and the polar bear — and it’s also already struck New Orleans and Cedar Rapids.

Weather disasters are the al Qaeda of climate change. The September 11th attacks cost this nation $80 billion and thousands of lives. This nation woke up to the threat of international terrorism, fueled in part by the global dependence on Middle East oil. Hurricane Katrina cost this nation $80 billion and thousands of lives (and displaced a million). We haven’t woken up.

Building a green economy takes a trillion-dollar shift in resources that has the potential to radically reform the power structure in the United States. A green economy involves moving from capital-intensive energy to labor-intensive energy — instead of McMansions heated by giant power plants financed by the Bank of America, it’s homes greened by insulators and solar panel installers, linked on a smart grid. By making work pay instead of pollution, the economy will thrive but established interests will be forced to change.

Like health care and labor reform, limiting carbon pollution threatens the corrupt business model of the corporate right. So there are 2000 full-time corporate lobbyists, and multimillion-dollar campaigns — run by ACCCE (coal interests), ASWF (right-wing financiers), AFP (pollution industry), COC (corporate right), and NAM (heavy industry) — with one message: we can’t afford change.

In reality, they’re the only ones who can afford the status quo — energy costs and polluter profits rising, oil drilling and oil dependence rising, greenhouse emissions and climate disasters rising, poverty and inequity rising, wages and jobs and health declining.

So for those who fear that we can’t afford change, yes we can. And we must.

Today, more than two dozen organizations from the research, advocacy, faith-based, labor and civil rights communities came together as the Climate Equity Alliance. Alliance members include the Center for American Progress, Green for All, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Service Employees International Union. Their principles recognize that clean energy legislation needs to be sustainable, honest, and fair:

– Protect people and the planet: Limit carbon emissions at a level and timeline that science dictates.

– Maximize the gain: Build an inclusive green economy providing pathways into prosperity and expanding opportunity for America’s workers and communities.

– Minimize the pain: Assist low and moderate income families in meeting their basic needs.

– Shore up resilience to climate impacts: Assure that those who are most vulnerable to the direct effects of climate change are able to prepare and adapt.

– Ease the transition: Address the impacts of economic change for workers and communities.

– Put a price on global warming pollution and invest in solutions: Capture the value of carbon emissions for public purposes and invest this resource in an equitable transition to a clean energy economy.

The Climate Equity Alliance’s recognition that attention needs to be paid to global boiling impacts is critical, as every state in the nation already suffers from major climate-related costs — costs which will continue to rise as the planet heats up. The full list of members is below.

The alliance specifically calls for “public and private investments that help rebuild and retrofit our nation,” “training and job readiness programs,” “direct consumer rebates” to low- and moderate-income households, “assistance and tools” for workers in carbon-intense industries, and the use of carbon price revenues to invest in the public good, instead of “windfall profits for corporations.”

On Friday, a separate coalition of state-level climate and environmental justice organizations will speak out in support of Rep. Chris Van Hollen’s Cap and Dividend Act (H.R. 1862), introduced last week. Van Hollen’s proposal calls for all revenues of a cap and trade system to be returned in flat rebate to all citizens. Social entrepreneur Peter Barnes, a prominent advocate of the “dividend” approach, has explained how these rebates reward efficiency:

Those who burn more carbon will pay more than those who burn less. If you drive a sports-utility vehicle, you’ll use more sky than if you ride a bus; hence you’ll pay more scarcity rent. Since your dividend is the same no matter what, you’ll come out ahead if you conserve [energy] and lose money if you don’t.

Despite Barnes’ misguided, libertarian reasoning that cap and dividend is needed because government can’t be trusted to invest money in the public good, the proposal does reward work instead of pollution. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has calculated, allocating 14 percent of cap-and-trade revenues makes the transition to clean energy a positive economic gain for low- and moderate-income households — even before the rewards of a healthier economy and planet are delivered. President Obama’s plan to fund a middle-class tax cut with climate revenues also ensures at least $15 billion a year are allocated for green public investment.

Legislators return to Washington with a week of hearings on the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act on April 20th, less than two weeks away.

Founding members of the Climate Equity Alliance:

• ACORN
• Center for American Progress
• Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
• Citizens for Tax Justice
• Center for Law and Social Policy
• Coalition on Human Needs
• Democracia Ahora
• Economic Policy Institute
• Enterprise Community Partners
• First Focus
• Green For All
• NAACP
• National Hispanic Environmental Council
• National Low Income Housing Coalition
• Oxfam America
• Policy Link
• Redefining Progress
• Service Employees International Union
• The Workforce Alliance
• Union for Reform Judaism
• United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
• US Action
• The Washington Office of Public Policy, Women’s Division, United Methodist Church
• Wider Opportunities for Women

Organizations supporting cap and dividend:

• Montana Environmental Information Center (MT)
• Fresh Energy (MN)
• Penn Future (PA)
• New Energy Economy (NM)
• Center for Civic Policy (NM)
• Climate Protection Campaign (CA)
• Chesapeake Climate Action Network (MD/VA/DC)
• Plains Justice (IA)
• New York Public Interest Research Group (NY)
• South Carolina Coastal Conservation League (SC)
• Ohio Citizen Action (OH)