Sat, 2013-04-27 07:00Brendan DeMelle
Brendan DeMelle's picture

Fox Snooze: Global Warming Name Game Debunked By Media Matters (Again)

Media Matters put out a video this past week with clips of all the recent FOX News mentions of a global warming name conspiracy. The Fox 'conspiracy' is that 'liberals' stopped calling it global warming and started calling it climate change. Little did they realize, apparently, that the man responsible for the partisan polarization over the terminology of climate change vs. global warming is none other than FOX News contributor Frank Luntz. Watch: 


As Media Matters points out: 
Scientists use "global warming" when speaking about the increase in average global surface temperatures. They use "climate change" to refer to all the other disruptions that greenhouse gas emissions are causing -- from rising sea levels, to abruptly changing precipitation patterns that increase the likelihood of droughtsand wildfires in certain areas and extreme flooding in others, to acidifying oceans that disturb the marine food web.

If you're still confused, head over to Joe Romm's post, Debunking The Dumbest Denier Myth (Again): ‘Climate Change’ Vs. ‘Global Warming’

Read more: Fox Snooze: Global Warming Name Game Debunked By Media Matters (Again)
Thu, 2013-04-25 14:35Brendan DeMelle
Brendan DeMelle's picture

President Obama Slams Climate Deniers on Twitter

You don't see this every day. President Barack Obama used Twitter today to call out climate deniers in Congress who are blocking political action to address climate change. 

The tweet links to this video released by Organizing for Action, the 501(c)(4) campaign group that promotes the President's national agenda. 

Read more: President Obama Slams Climate Deniers on Twitter
Wed, 2013-04-24 13:40Brendan DeMelle
Brendan DeMelle's picture

Breaking: Enbridge Pipeline Spills in Minnesota (Updates original)

Enbridge's Line 2 **Line 67 tar sands** pipeline has leaked an estimated 600 gallons of crude oil at its pump station near Viking, Minnesota. Line 2 was built in 1956 and has a history of spills. Regulators ordered Enbridge to reduce its Line 2 operating pressure in October 2010 following the company's Kalamazoo River tar sands spill. 

The Enbridge Viking pump station also receives oil from the Alberta Clipper (aka Line 67 pipeline) that carries heavy crude oil and tar sands bitumen from the Alberta tar sands region south from Hardisty to Superior, Wisconsin and refineries in the midwestern United States. It is unclear whether the product that spilled was tar sands-derived diluted bitumen. According to a link provided by Enbridge subsequent to this story's original posting, Line 2 begins in Edmonton and carries petroleum products, including crude oil, from Edmonton to Superior. Both lines pass through the Viking pump station.  

The U.S. Coast Guard National Response Center website reports the details of the incident, which happened last night:  
"1044848","1044848","1044848","INCIDENT","23-APR-2013 17:09","THE CALLER REPORTED THAT A LEAK ON A PRESSURE TRANSMITTER RESULTED IN A RELEASE OF CRUDE OIL.","FIXED","EQUIPMENT FAILURE","23-APR-2013 15:45","18060 203TH ST NW","MN","VIKING","MARSHALL","ENBRIDGE ENERGY","SOIL","OIL: CRUDE"

DeSmog was alerted by the Indigenous Environmental Network, which is en route to the spill site to gather more information. Stay tuned for updates to this post below.
 
**This story originally reported that Enbridge Line 67 tar sands pipeline suffered the leak, but Enbridge subsequently confirmed the spill was on Line 2. DeSmog regrets the error.**

Enbridge was warned earlier this month by the National Energy Board that the company "is not abiding by federal safety standards at 117 pumping stations along its extensive crude oil network in Canada, putting the safety of the public at risk."

Read more: Breaking: Enbridge Pipeline Spills in Minnesota (Updates original)
Wed, 2013-04-24 10:35Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

The Carbon Bubble: Are We Exploring for Fossil Fuels We Won't Need?

Despite an international agreement to reduce emissions from carbon-intensive sources, oil and coal companies continue to pour hundreds of billions of dollars a year into finding new fossil fuel deposits containing enough carbon to more than double global climate pollution emissions.  

This is the conclusion of a new report finding that $674 billion was spent globally last year alone on the discovery of new fossil fuel deposits that will likely never be used. 

The report, Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted Capital and Stranded Assets, authored by researchers at the Carbon Tracker Initiative, Grantham Foundation and the London School of Economics and Politics, describes the idea of a "carbon bubble" that is the result of global fossil fuel reserves that already far exceed the maximum amount we can afford to burn and still avoid the most disastrous effects of climate change.

Despite this growing carbon bubble, and the inevitable movement towards a greatly reduced reliance on carbon intensive fuels in the future, energy companies continue to pour billions of dollars into discovering new fossil fuel reserves. 

Read more: The Carbon Bubble: Are We Exploring for Fossil Fuels We Won't Need?
Tue, 2013-04-23 15:37Ben Jervey
Ben Jervey's picture

EPA Again Slams State Department's Keystone XL Assessment as "Insufficient"

On Monday, the State Department’s public comment period closed for the Keystone XL pipeline draft environmental impact statement. Over one million comments were submitted by citizens opposed to the tar sands pipeline. Then came the most damning comment of them all: from the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA submitted a letter faulting the State Department’s environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline for being “insufficient” and raising “Environmental Objections” to the project.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because the very same thing happened roughly two years ago, when the State Department was first assessing the proposed tar sands pipeline project.

In June of 2011, the EPA first wrote to criticize the draft environmental impact statement as “insufficient.”

That EPA letter certainly played a part -- as did sustained grassroots advocacy efforts, exposes on conflicts of interest between State and the pipeline’s profiteers, and relentless debunking of false jobs and energy security promises -- in the State Department’s move to punt the decision for a year, take a fresh look at the proposals, and go back to the drawing board to create a new supplemental environmental impact statement.

Read more: EPA Again Slams State Department's Keystone XL Assessment as "Insufficient"

Pages

Subscribe to DeSmogBlog