A side event at the UNFCCC COP20 climate negotiations in Lima, Peru was disrupted Monday when climate activists and individuals representing communities on the frontlines of energy development flooded the presentation hall and staged a ‘walk out’ on fossil fuels.

The event was hosted by the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) and the Global CCS Institute and featured Lord Nicholas Stern and David Hone, Shell’s chief climate advisor, as speakers.

The talk, originally entitled “Why Divest from Fossil Fuels When a Future with Low Emission Fossil Fuel Energy Use is Already a Reality?,” was inexplicably renamed “How Can we Reconcile Climate Targets with Energy Demand Growth” and focused on the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a technological solution to carbon emissions that cause global warming.

A citizen group formed outside the venue holding a banner that read “get fossil fuels out of COP” and used the acronym CCS to spell out “Corporate Capture ≠ Solution.”

Civil society groups gather outside a fossil fuel sponsored event discussing carbon capture and storage. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

The protest was designed to “defend our rights from these companies and corporations that are attacking our people,” Ana Maytik Avirama, from the Corporate Europe Observatory Foundation, told a crowd gathered outside the presentation pavilion.

“We need to keep the fossil fuel lobby out of these negotiations, out of our governments and out of the decisions that are trying to protect our livelihoods and our lives,” she said.

Godwin Uyi Ojo, executive director of environmental rights action in Nigeria attended the action to protest Shell’s presence at the climate negotiations.

“Enough is enough,” he said.

Godwin Uyi Ojo speaks to a crowd gathered outside the IETA event. "Leave the oil in the soil, the coal in the hole, the tar sands in the sand," he said. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

“Shell is in that conference promoting dirty energy. They say dirty energy has a place in the future…what you see there is greenwashing. That’s why people are so angry at Shell. We are tired of these antics.”

Bronwen Tucker, a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation said the event, which was sponsored by Shell and Chevron, was designed to discredit grassroots fossil fuel divestment campaigns and tout CCS as a climate solution.

“CCS has been labeled the unicorn of the climate change world because instead of taking emissions out of the atmosphere it would just store them, but it’s an unproven technology that’s prohibitively expensive, much more expensive than renewable energy and other solutions that have been put forward,” she said, adding the event is emblematic of a long-term problem at COP of fossil fuel industry influence in the climate decision-making process.

Bronwen Tucker from the Canadian Youth Delegation told DeSmog CCS is an "unproven technology" that directs investment funds away from renewable energy. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

Lord Nicholas Stern, Chair of the Grantham Research Institute of Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, told DeSmog CCS has the potential to play a huge role in climate action.

“We have to take 50 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent now, globally, down to about zero by the end of this century.”

“We’ve not got many options. And in my view energy efficiency can do the half of it, and the more it does, the better,” Stern said, adding renewables will play a major role as well as some nuclear.

Lord Nicholas Stern discusses CCS with DeSmog Canada. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

“The rest will have to be CCS. That’s all we’ve got. The problem is so big and so important that we’ve got to do all we can.”

He added that CCS removes particulates in dirty emissions coming from sources of energy like oil and, especially, coal.

“The climate emissions we produce now kill people down the track,” Stern said. “Particulates…are killing people now on a major scale. We’ve got to deal with both of them and CCS does both of them.”

According to a report recently put out by the New Carbon Economy, particulate matter from the burning of fossil fuels contributes to both lung and heart disease. According to the World Health Organization particulate pollution plays a substantial role in nearly 4 million premature deaths each year that are attributed to outdoor pollution.

Stern acknowledged there is some uncertainty associated with the technology but he added “you’ve got to pursue all the options because some are going to do better than others and you can’t tell for sure what those are going to be. From the point of view of managing risk, it makes sense to go after more than one [solution].”

Mike Monea, president of the carbon capture and storage initiatives for SaskPower, Saskatchewan’s main power provider, also attended the event to talk about CCS viability in the wake of Boundary Dam, the world’s first coal plant retrofitted with carbon sequestration technology. The project went live in October 2014.

Carbon capture and storage infographic from SaskPower.

Monea argued CCS technology is no longer in question and should play a critical role in the new climate era. And although Monea highlighted the positive climate effects of CCS usage, the position of SaskPower is that CCS “is making a viable technical, environmental and economic case for the continued use of coal.”

Saskatchewan local, Megan Van Buskirk, a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation said the $1.35 billion Boundary Dam project won’t do much at all to address climate change.

“There are lots of issues involved with that project in terms of its reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, for example, SaskPower which is a monopoly in Saskatchewan – which owns that power plant – their emissions are 15 million tonnes per year and that storage facility is only reducing their emissions by 1 million tonnes.”

Van Buskirk adds that SaskPower already has a plan to sell much of that captured carbon to Cenovus Energy for enhanced oil and gas recovery.

“So we see that issue there where we’re touting this as a solution to climate change but really we’re using it to extract more oil and gas which will ultimately mean more greenhouse gas emissions,” she said.

“We really believe this is a false solution to climate change.”

Brad Page, the CEO of the Global CCS Institute, said he feels CCS is a necessity if we’re going to meet global climate targets. He points to the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges CCS will play a role in preventing carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere. 

He added negative public perception is due to a lack of understanding – something industry needs to remedy.

“At a very simple level, CCS puts carbon dioxide back underground where it came from. Many of the people I talk to think CCS is putting carbon into big caverns or something. It’s in fact back into the porous spaces in rocks that the oil and gas originally came from. So it’s actually not a threat.”

Page did not speak to concerns that failed CCS projects could re-release carbon back into the atmosphere.

He added, “I think that environmental groups are really from their heart concerned about continuing the use of fossil fuels and I think many of them want to actually see CCS take off and prove that it can actually be one of those viable technologies.”

Page pointed to Boundary Dam as an example of viable CCS and said there are about four more projects underway in their early construction stages.

“By 2050 though, with the sort of climate targets we’ve got we can’t achieve those emission outcomes without all the technology. Renewables are really important in this, as it energy efficiency. Nuclear is a fairly unloved duckling as well, but it’s going to be needed. And so is CCS.”

“I don’t see that there’s another option here.”

Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy and chief scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said we’ve “dallied so long on moving toward aggressive emissions reductions that we really need to explore every possible opportunity to constrain emissions below 2 degrees C.”

Frumhoff added efficiency and renewables may not be enough in themselves to limit warming to that 2 degree level.

“Therefore we need to consider other technologies including some that some of us might not love and that may themselves pose some risks. But we’re simply not at a point where we can ignore the much greater climate risks of going above 2 degrees C.”

But for Tucker, the conversation about CCS at the ongoing UNFCCC climate talks should not be dominated by industry.

“It would be the same as having tobacco companies at a conference on lung cancer. There’s a clear conflict. They already have so much sway outside of discussions like this. There’s no room for companies to be holding official UN events."

Jamie Henn from the climate advocacy group 350.org described CCS as a "smokescreen."

"The fossil fuel industry can run from divestment, but they can't hide from the reality that 80 per cent of their reserves need to stay underground. Here in Lima, world leaders are finally talking about targets that are in the realm of what's needed, namely going to zero carbon by 2050. If we're going to meet that goal, we need to start now. If Big Oil wants to research CCS, fine, but that shouldn't distract us from the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels and towards 100 per cent renewable energy." 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

David Hone, Shell’s top climate advisor told an audience at the COP20 climate negotiations underway in Lima, Peru today that the company enjoys its relationship with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a contentious corporate ‘bill mill’ known for its climate change denial and aggressive efforts to counteract emissions reductions and regulations.

More than 90 companies have parted ways with ALEC since 2012, according to the Center for Media and Democracy, after ALEC’s contentious position on climate science drew the ire of shareholders, citizen groups and unions.

Perhaps most famously, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt accused ALEC of “literally lying” about climate science and publicly announced the company’s decision to forego renewing its ALEC membership. The decision prompted a ‘tech exodus’ from ALEC which saw companies like Microsoft, Facebook, Yelp, Yahoo!, and AOL cut ties with the free market group.

Other notable companies that have left ALEC include Amazon, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, General Electric, General Motors, McDonalds, and Walmart among many others.

Even oil and gas companies like Alliant Energy, Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips have severed ties (although ConocoPhillips returned this year as a director-level donor of the ALEC annual conference under the name of Phillips 66).

Speaking on the topic of carbon capture and storage, Hone was asked by Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy and chief scientist of the Union of Concerned Scientists, when Shell expected to part ways with ALEC.

Hone responded: “we remain a member of ALEC. We remain a member of many organizations that hold many different views on many different issues.”

“We clearly value what our relationship with ALEC offers. We can talk to state legislators, not necessarily about climate, but on a range of issues,” Hone said, adding that Shell enjoys the benefits of being a member of the lobby group even if they diverge on climate science.

Frumhoff said Hone’s answer points to a deep inconsistency with Shell’s position on climate: “Shell has really spoken out forcefully about the risks of climate change, the acceptance of findings of the IPCC, the need for emissions reductions. In some ways Shell is doing some good things on climate.”

On the other hand, Frumhoff continued, “they are a long-standing active funder and participant with the American Legislative Exchange Council which in the United States is a highly influential lobbying organization that is both outspoken on denying climate science and the serious risks as highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and outspoken in its efforts to create model legislation aimed at avoiding regulation of greenhouse gas emissions at a state level and also at a federal level in the U.S.,” he said.

ALEC has 2,000 legislative members and over 300 corporate members that may vote on ‘model’ bills and resolutions that are crafted to advance corporate interests.

ALEC has produced thousands of corporate-friendly bills that state legislators have advanced to argue for cheaper and easier access to tobacco, suppress tort legal action and increase private education profits — not to mention the extremely controversial Stand Your Ground gun laws and voter identification laws that have been compared to poll taxes — yet there is still very little transparency surrounding the bill writing and voting process.

Image Credit: David Hone via IPCC_CH on Twitter

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In an open letter published Monday more than 800 scientists are asking Prime Minister Stephen Harper to end “burdensome restriction on scientific communication and collaboration faced by Canadian government scientists.”

The Harper government has recently attracted international attention after a report published by a leading research union identified Canadian scientists as particularly hard hit by budget cuts and communications protocols that prevent their freedom of expression.

More than 800 scientists from over 32 countries signed Monday’s letter, drafted by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The letter states “a rapid decline in freedoms and funding” is restricting scientific freedoms in Canada by preventing open communication and collaboration with other international scientists.

“Canada’s leadership in basic research, environmental, health and other public science is in jeopardy,” the letter states. “We urge you to restore government science funding and the freedom and opportunities to communicate these finding internationally.”

Harper government downplays concerns

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) is promoting the signed letter in news outlets across Canada to raise awareness during the Government of Canada’s Science and Technology week.

In 2013 PIPSC released a survey that found 90 per cent of federal government scientists felt they were not able to speak freely with the media about their work. The survey also found 86 per cent feared censure or retaliation were they to speak critically about a departmental decision that might harm public health, safety or the environment.

Recently the science advocacy group Evidence for Democracy released a report that gave the majority of federal departments studied a low or failing grade when it comes to open communication, protection against political interference, freedom of speech and whistleblower protection.

In a statement Scott French, spokesman for science and technology minister Ed Holder, said the government has made “record investments in science, technology and innovation,” adding the country is first among G7 countries for its support of academic research and “other research institutes.”

PIPSC told the Canadian Press that $2.6 billion in budget cuts are planned or underway for Canada’s 10 science-based federal departments between 2013 and 2016.

French said “while ministers are the primary spokespersons for government departments; scientists have, and are readily available to share their research with Canadians.”

World is watching Canada

Michael Halpern, Union of Concerned Scientists manager of strategy of innovation, said the open letter is meant to emphasize international scientific concern over Canada’s treatment of science.

Severe restrictions on research, communication and collaboration impedes the advancement of scientific knowledge and in some cases, Halpern said, U.S. researchers are hesitant to work with Canadian government scientists because of strict partnership agreements that prevent the free flow of information.

In early 2013 University of Deleware researcher Andreas Muenchow made waves when he refused to sign a revised Canadian information sharing agreement that he felt threatened his “freedom to speak, publish, educate, learn and share.” Muenchow had been collaborating with federal government scientists from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for a decade at the time of the revisions.

Halpern said the Harper government’s cuts to air pollution and climate monitoring are negatively affecting understanding of these issues. He added that scientists are also prevented from traveling to international conferences to share their work, undermining the scientific process.

U.S. scientists faced similar problems

Halpern said the Union of Concerned Scientists reached out to PIPSC because it faced similar threats to scientific freedom in the U.S.

“Science thrives in an environment that is open and free and where researchers can collaborate across borders,” he said. “Canadian government scientists have made many critical contributions to our understanding of environmental and public health challenges, and we need to best and the brightest throughout the world to be able to work together.”

Peter Bleyer, policy advisor for PIPSC, told the Canadian Press the group is publicizing the letter because “we thought it was important to draw attention to what the world thinks – what the science world thinks.”

He said currently federal scientists are unable to speak freely.

“There’s so much evidence pointing to how government science has been undermined and how Canadian government scientists have been muzzled,” Bleyer said. “What is more important now is what’s the impact of that? What’s the impact in terms of our reputation around the world…and what’s the impact on Canadians in their day to day life?”

“We really hope that this appeal to what the world thinks of Canada is something that will strike a chord.”

Image Credit: Stand up for Science rally by Zack Embree.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). It originally appeared on the UCS blog The Equation.

Asbestos can kill you. We’ve all been warned about the dangers of breathing it in. That is why we test buildings for it and have rules to protect construction workers from exposure to it. But how do we know asbestos is harmful? Because scientists have done studies of the dangers it poses to our health. And I’m glad they have so we can avoid these threats.

Tampering with science behind the health effects of asbestos

For decades, however, some companies have fought efforts to regulate asbestos, even tampering with the science behind our understanding of its health effects. And, sadly, a recent court ruling indicates that the tampering may have been more widespread than anyone previously knew.

Recently, a New York Appeals Court ruled unanimously that that Georgia Pacific, a subsidiary of Koch Industries, must hand over internal documents pertaining to the publication of 11 studies published in reputable scientific journals between 2008 and 2012. At issue in the case: whether the firm can be held accountable for engaging in a “crime-fraud” by planting misinformation in these journals intending to show that the so-called chrysotile asbestos in its widely used joint compound doesn’t cause cancer.

Science falsely presented as independent research—with lawyers suggesting revisions

Here’s what we know. The articles were published in the following scientific journals: Inhalation Toxicology, The Journal of Occupational & Environmental Hygiene, Annals of Occupational Hygiene, and Risk Analysis. The studies were authored by conflicted experts who were hired by Georgia Pacific; the company’s lawyers were involved throughout the process and, even more alarming, these conflicts of interest were not disclosed in the studies. As a result, the articles in question were untruthfully presented as independent, bona fide research.

The court noted that the studies were intended to cast doubt on the capability of chrysotile asbestos to cause cancer and that the authors did not disclose that Georgia Pacific’s lawyers participated in lengthy discussions of the manuscripts and suggested revisions. As Justice Richard Andrias wrote in the court ruling demanding the internal documents that will shed light on the extent of wrongdoing, “The public has an interest in resolving disputes on the basis of accurate information.”

The difference between funding for science and paying for specific scientific conclusions

Of course, there is no surprise that companies such as Georgia Pacific have scientists working on research. Private companies are a significant funder of science, especially as public funding options for scientists have decreased. But there is a bright line between the funding of science—whatever outcome it reaches—and paying scientists to reach a specific scientific conclusion. Such efforts to manufacture false scientific evidence as part of a legal or marketing strategy are reprehensible.

The process of science has both a logic and rhythm to it, from research and analysis, to peer review, comparison and publication for consideration by other scientists. It is about discovery, building knowledge and understanding of the natural and human world. Many in society— and many, many companies—have benefited from this open process of science. But everyone is threatened when companies manipulate the scientific process itself in the name of marketing and profit—and, most disturbingly, when the actions put people directly at risk as they did in this case.

Ghost-writing scientific papers undermines science and threatens public safety

Asbestos is but one case of “ghost-writing” of counterfeit science for academic publications in an effort to market or cast doubt on scientific results. Recently, the editors of the Public Library of Science (PloS) Medicine, a respected open-access scientific journal, published a series of articles highlighting how widespread the problem has become in the pharmaceutical field and the difficulties academic journals are facing as they try to combat the problem.

Perhaps the most telling article in the series was written by a former ghost-writer who detailed her company’s role in creating scientific papers and presentations solely as a marketing tool. According to her account, her company was unconcerned about discovery and expanding knowledge, but rather sought to push its drugs to new markets – effective or not, dangerous or not.

As a scientist, it goes against my teaching and experience to accept that ghost-writing of fraudulent scientific papers in the name of commerce should be allowed to continue unabated. Not only does it undermine the entire scientific enterprise, it poses an enormous potential threat to the public. Everyone, knowingly or not, is affected by scientific evidence about what is safe, what can help or hurt them, and how best to keep their families safe. Everyone makes choices, and should be free to do so, based on this information.

Deliberately falsifying science isn’t just a financial matter for shareholders and company managers. It has real impacts—potential life-and-death impacts in the case of asbestos. Companies: by all means, market your products; tell us why you think they are good choices. But keep your lawyers, public relations, and marketing people out of the science we depend on. There are lives at stake.

About the author: Andrew Rosenberg is the director of the UCS Center for Science and Democracy. He leads UCS's efforts to advance the essential role that science, evidence-based decision making, and constructive debate play in American policy making. Subscribe to Andrew's posts.

Image Credit: Asbestos Mine in Canada by jaharris1001 via The Photo Forum.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

It has been called “Stephen Harper’s war on science” in Canada and just plain "war on science" in the US. But whatever you call it, scientists everywhere are frustrated with how scientific research is treated in North America. With the American sequester cuts looming on the horizon and the Canadian government openly admitting that it is no longer interested in funding "discovery science," scientists are feeling accused, cut-off and shut-up.

It is becoming a trend in the United States and Canada to treat scientists like nay-sayers or rebels without a cause instead of like respected public figures. In cases where scientific evidence doesn't support industry, governments in both countries have allowed corporations and oil companies to cast doubts on research.

By dirt digging into scientists’ private lives and creating false parallel science, the pursuit of doing good science has become a complicated job. Character defamation and false research has not only offered enough leeway to proceed on potentially dangerous projects, it has done endless damage to the reputation of the scientific community.

Though President Obama promised otherwise when he “told scientists, engineers and doctors that his goal is to reach for a public and private research and development investment that we haven’t seen since the space race.”

The reality is, the 2013 sequester is expected to be devastating to many non-defense agencies. The National Institutes of Health will sustain funding cuts of around $1.6 billion, the National Science Foundation is losing $283 million, and the American Association of Science is looking at a cut of about $9.3 billion.

Similarly, the Canadian scientific research and development agency, the National Research Council (NRC), said earlier this month that they intent to perform only research that has “social or economic gain.”  They announced this as a departure from “discovery science,” which “comes from what scientists think is important,” to a focus on “innovation.” John McDougal, President of the NRC, said “scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value.”

The attack doesn’t stop at funding, however. For years, government scientists in Canada, working in areas such as Natural Resources, have “need[ed] permission from their minister’s office before they can go to the media with their results. [The ministry] then has say over whether they can talk to the media or not.”

The complaint that Government has been “muzzling” scientists has prompted the federal commissioner’s office to launch a full-scale investigation into "Stephen Harper’s War on Science." Since April this year, Suzanne Legault’s office has been looking into “the systematic efforts of the government of Canada to obstruct the right of the media—and through them, the Canadian public—to timely access to government scientists.”  Seven federal departments and agencies, from Environment Canada to the National Research Council of Canada will be investigated.

Scientists too are taking matters into their own hands and they are doing so by banding together against suppression. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) at the Center for Science and Democracy, in the US and PublicScience.ca in Canada are hard-working organizations that aim to help the public to “distinguish evidence from political positioning.” 

Image from the Union of Concerned Scientists anti-science cartoon competition.

Biologist Jeff Hutchings spoke out against the "muzzling" of scientists at the Death of Evidence demonstration on parliament hill last July.

He said: “When you inhibit the communication of science, you inhibit science. When you inhibit science, you inhibit the acquisition of knowledge. Government control over the ability of society to acquire knowledge has alarming precedence. An iron curtain is being drawn between science and society."

It’s not a good time to cut funding to scientific research.

“The challenges are only increasing,” Andrew Rosenberg of the UCS said in a recent interview. ”It’s not as if the issues of trying to maintain the health of the oceans is diminishing." The UCS has established a campaign to draw attention to scientific research in fields like Global Warming, Food and Agriculture, and Scientific Integrity.

Their tagline is: “Strengthening American Democracy by advancing the essential role of science, evidence-based decision making, and constructive debate as a means to improve the health, security and prosperity of all people.”

Image Credit: Union of Concerned Scientists cartoon competition via coExist

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Yesterday the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released an explanatory brief on the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events, saying "strong scientific evidence links climate change with increasing heat waves, coastal flooding, and other extreme weather events."

The issues has become a hot topic recently after a tornado ripped through Moore, Oklahoma, causing brutal damage and killing 24 people, 8 of which were children. Politicians linking the disaster to global warming were called "hard-hearted and factually ignorant vultures" by Forbes contributor James Taylor.

Although the practice of linking extreme weather events to accelerating global warming has become common place after the devastation of Hurricane Sandy topped off 2012, a record-breaking year for weather related droughts and wildfires. The storm reportedly broke the "climate silence" leading into the 2012 presidential election and ushered the warming atmosphere back into the spotlight.

Yet, says the UCS, the relationship between increased levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and apocalyptic weather is one best treated with caution. While some storms may have a more direct relationship with hotter summers, for example, other weather events, like tornados, are more tricky to blame on global warming, although "climate change [is] expected to play a role."

Here is a handy infographic that shows just where the strongest evidence lies:

Here is how they outline the particulars:

Extreme Weather and Climate Change

•   What's the connection between global warming and extreme weather? When it comes to heat waves and coastal flooding, the scientific evidence is clear: Human-caused climate change is increasing these extreme weather events.
•   Other forms of severe weather are also closely linked to climate change, including a rise in extreme precipitation events in some regions and increasingly severe droughts in others. 
•   The effect of climate change on tornadoes and hurricanes is an active area of research. Scientific confidence with observed data is currently low, though the underlying mechanisms of climate change are expected to play a role.

The infographic is based on research and evaluation coming from the Special Report on managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaption (SREX), from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment in 2012.

More information about the methodology behind the infographic can be found at the UCS explanatory note.

As Andrew Revkin reported, the UCS also released this statement to the press:

"We recently noticed a small flurry of policymaker statements on climate change that struck us as inaccurate or misleading. At the same time, we’ve received several inquiries about extreme weather, particularly in the wake of the Oklahoma tornado strike. Below, we’ve compiled some of the statements as well as blog posts and other resources that point to what the science says. Please let us know if you have any questions and if we can help identify other scientific resources.

When it comes to extreme weather, we always take the opportunity to point back to the last definitive international scientific report on extreme weather and climate change, which found strong historic links for heat waves, coastal flooding and changes in precipitation along with weaker links for tornadoes and hurricanes.

On Monday, Gov. Christie was asked for the second time in recent months if Superstorm Sandy was linked to climate change. The governor correctly said that Sandy was not “caused” by climate change, but he failed to acknowledge how sea-level rise, which is caused by climate change, increased the size of Sandy’s devastating storm surge. As the state rebuilds, it’s not clear if the governor is integrating future sea-level rise into his plans. Meanwhile, Rutgers University researchers estimate that the state can expect 1.3 feet of sea-level rise by 2050 and 3.1 feet by 2100.

Also on Monday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) included tornadoes in his discussion of extreme weather and climate change. At the time, his office says, he did not know tornadoes were hitting Oklahoma. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) also linked a number of extreme weather phenomena to climate change in a floor speech, including tornadoes. UCS climate scientist Brenda Ekwurzel writes that because the historical tornado record is spotty, scientists don’t yet have enough evidence to determine how climate change is affecting tornadoes.

Finally, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Science Committee, used a Washington Post op-ed to spread increasingly common misinformation about recent surface temperature trends. In another blog post, Ekwurzel explains how natural variability and human-induced climate change are increasing global temperatures in a step-wise pattern."

Image Credit: Eric Nguyen via NASA

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.