Our presumed Speaker of the US House of Representatives could make Congress even less climate friendly than it already is.

On the other hand, having Kevin McCarthy as the Face of Climate Denial would be a great boost for truth in advertising.

Inside Climate News:

Boehner’s presumed successor is Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California. McCarthy, the No. 2 Republican in the House, would be as bad—if not worse—than the Ohio congressman on climate change and environmental issues, political and environmental experts said. They said the other potential candidates, Florida Rep. Daniel Webster and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, who chairs the Tea Party-aligned House Freedom Caucus and has not officially announced interest in the position, are just as dismal.

“Let me not pull any punches: McCarthy’s going to be horrible,” said RL Miller, chair of the California Democratic party’s environment caucus and founder of Climate Hawks Vote, a super PAC that works to elect climate-conscious candidates. “His district is Bakersfield, California, deep red rural farm country. He stands up for oil companies and for big agriculture.”

McCarthy, a businessman, has risen quickly through the Congressional ranks since he was elected to the House in 2006. Two years after starting in D.C., he became Republican chief deputy whip, moving to majority whip in 2011. He became majority leader in 2014 when Virginia Republican Eric Cantor unexpectedly lost his seat to Tea Party candidate Dave Brat.

“Energy is the issue I care most about,” McCarthy told The Wall Street Journal in 2014. McCarthy, 50, is a fourth-generation resident of Kern County, which produces approximately 75 percent of California’s oil and 58 percent of its natural gas. If the county were a state, it would rank fourth in oil production in the nation, according to the Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce. The oil and gas industry is McCarthy’s fourth largest campaign donor, contributing more than $825,000 over his Congressional career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks donations.

For more insight into the New Speaker’s unique oratorical stylings, see below.

Read the rest of this entry »

Wow, here’s an idea. How about instead of cutting teacher’s pay and shortchanging our children, we turn our schools into energy producing centers? Solar City is doing it now.

Michael Lumley, Solar City:

As a self proclaimed energy geek, there are a lot cool technologies that I can get excited over. Today’s announcement though is one I have waited to see for many years. SolarCity has just completed, in one summer I might add, a $20,000,000 installation that enabled the Temecula Valley Unified School District to save $500,000 in the first year alone. The amazing part is not that they put no money down for it, nor that it allows them to preserve numerous programs with the revenue they saved. The amazing part is that it includes energy storage to mitigate peak demand charges and protect critical loads WHILE saving them that much money.

Storage has been around for a long time and so has solar. However SolarCity’s ability to combine the two under a single PPA and create that much value is absolutely game changing. Any entities who like paying the price for crowded lines on an energy grid, please look away, but for all those who want the solution that beats the lowest cost of grid supply energy and mitigates future volatility, watch the video above.

How to get the media’s attention? Here’s an idea that might work..

They Knew.
If you’ve been following the historic spotlight that Inside Climate News has been shining on Oil Giant Exxon’s long-time research into climate change impacts – well, you’re way ahead of most human beings. The silence of the mainstream media outlets on this story may be as stunning as the story itself, which is saying a lot.

Meanwhile, as I’ve posted yesterday, we’re witnessing a classic exercise in misdirection, as Congress begins investigating – not what Exxon knew and when they knew it – but rather, the small group of scientists who have had the temerity to write a letter asking the President and Attorney General to file a Racketeering case against the fossil fuel industry, much as was done against the tobacco industry, almost 20 years ago. 

When coupled with the emerging consensus and sense of urgency that polls are showing among a majority of voters, heading into an election year that will likely be one of the hottest in history – the pieces are in place for a game changing political earthquake.


Inside Climate News:

In 1980, as Exxon Corp. set out to develop one of the world’s largest deposits of natural gas, it found itself facing an unfamiliar risk: the project would emit immense amounts of carbon dioxide, adding to the looming threat of climate change.

The problem cropped up shortly after Exxon signed a contract with the Indonesian state oil company to exploit the Natuna gas field in the South China Sea—big enough to supply the blossoming markets of Japan, Taiwan and Korea with liquefied natural gas into the 21st century.

Assessing the environmental impacts, Exxon Research and Engineering quickly identified Natuna’s greenhouse gas problem. The reservoir was contaminated with much more carbon dioxide than normal. It would have to be disposed of somehow—and simply venting it into the air could have serious consequences, Exxon’s experts warned.

Exxon’s dawning realization that carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect posed a danger to the world collided with the company’s fossil fuel ambitions.

“They were being farsighted,” recalled John L. Woodward, who wrote an internal report in 1981 on Natuna’s climate implications.

“They weren’t sure when CO2 controls would be required and how it would affect the economics of the project.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Why will there paradoxically be both heavier rainfall and increased droughts under climate change? Prof. Michael Mann of Penn State explains. Useful to understand, once again, how increasing incidents of severe downpours can actually result in dryer soil conditions over time.

In addition, below, Dr. Mann explains why debating climate deniers is like mud wrestling pigs.

Read the rest of this entry »

Add your name to the letter here.


If the US Congress is to take meaningful action to curb climate change, the support of corporate America and Republicans will be required. This is why a meeting of food industry executives and politicians – joined by a lone Republican congressman – on Capitol Hill on Thursday may be the first glimmer of a bipartisan approach to climate action.

US senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, and US representative Chris Gibson, a New York Republican, chaired the briefing. Bucking party orthodoxy, Gibson recently drew attention by organizing 11 moderate Republicans to support a resolution acknowledging the reality of climate change and asking Congress to act.

The briefing was held to call attention to a letter signed by CEOs of some of the world’s biggest food companies, which asks governments to set “clear, achievable” science-based targets for carbon emissions reductions. Ceres circulated the letter, which was published in full-page ads in the Washington Post and Financial Times.

Signed by the CEOs of companies including Mars, General Mills, Unilever, Dannon North America, Ben & Jerry’s, Kellogg, Nestle USA, New Belgium Brewing, Stonyfield Farm and Clif Bar, the letter says that climate change is “bad for farmers and for agriculture” and warned that “drought, flooding and hotter growing conditions threaten the world’s food supply and contribute to food insecurity”.

Gibson said he advocates action to curb climate change for the same reason that he supports a balanced federal budget: “So that future generations get the same choices and freedoms that we have.”


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,946 other followers