From a new Center for American Progress report, Out of the Running:

Associated Press:

The Nobel Prize-winning international scientific panel studying global warming is seeking independent outside review for how it makes major reports.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it’s seeking some kind of independent review because of recent criticism about its four 2007 reports.

Critics have found a few unsettling errors, including projections of retreats in Himalayan glaciers, in the thousands of pages of the reports.

Here is the statement:

PA_IPCC_Chairman_Statement_27Feb2010

Joining Senators Bingaman and Demint, Donald Trump is the latest public figure to misunderstand the difference between weather and climate:

With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore.”

“Gore wants us to clean up our factories… when China and other countries couldn’t care less… China, Japan and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.”

I understand the temptation for Mr. Trump to say whatever crazy bullshit pops into his head, since he is such a widely laughed at buffoon. But he should really do himself a favor and develop a cursory understanding of the subject matter before doing so, at least if he wants to maintain his last shred of dignity for a few more awkward years, that is.

Nobody could have predicted that including agricultural waste in measurements of pollution would have such profound results:

A new Chinese government survey of the country’s environmental problems has shown water pollution levels in 2007 were more than twice the government’s official estimate, largely because agricultural waste was ignored.

More at Reuters.

Is clean energy deployment a race? Tom Friedman and others at The Times say yes, while Bradford Plumer and Christina Larson aren’t so sure.

Either way, China installed more wind capacity than the United States in 2009, and will likely have more capacity overall within a few years.

Here is what the last five years of installations looked like in the two countries:*

As recently as 2005, the United States installed nearly five times more wind capacity than China on an annual basis (2,431 MW vs. 498 MW). In 2009, China installed 31% more capacity than the United States did (13,000 MW vs. 9,922 MW).

*All data via the Global Wind Energy Council.

Via Lou Grinzo, the scariest chart I’ve seen in a while:

Here is a corresponding story.

Via Yglesias, via Free Exchange, Paul Kedrosky has this useful chart:

R.A. at Free Exchange makes an interesting point about this:

[W]hat should stand out is that most of the world’s population is squished into that broad bottom tier, which includes emerging markets and undeveloped countries. Really, something like 85% of the people living on this planet consume below the world’s average energy use. Either those people need to quit aspiring to developed nation lifestyles, or the world needs to make output far less energy-intensive, or we should all prepare ourselves for a nasty time of things, in geopolitical and environmental terms, as emerging markets continue to develop economically.

The other day I mentioned that the correlation between energy use and GDP is a myth. There are significant gains to be made in terms of energy efficiency, and I agree completely with the assessment that ‘the world needs to make output far less energy-intensive.’ Much of this will take place naturally once a meaningful price is placed on carbon throughout most of the planet. Smart firms will find innovative ways to decrease energy-intensity and will profit by doing so.

There is also huge potential for developing nations to ‘leapfrog’ outdated technologies and move directly to more efficient ones. For example, in India there is not yet a national power grid. Perhaps as they develop the national grid they’ll use smart grid technologies, which will lead to significant gains in energy efficiency.

Such leapfrogging of technologies, and the decreasing energy intensity of developing economies that goes with it, is our only hope for stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions while improving global standards of living at the same time. If developing countries don’t learn from the mistakes made by western economies, our energy and environmental crises will be entirely unmanageable in the decades to come.

Reuters:

The United States must adopt a carbon pricing system, like the one President Barack Obama has submitted to Congress, if it hopes to meet its U.N. commitments on greenhouse gas emissions, the International Energy Agency’s head said on Wednesday.Nobuo Tanaka, executive director of the Paris-based IEA which advises 28 industrialised nations on their energy policy, said Washington’s 2020 target of cutting carbon emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels meant it would have to adopt new legislation imposing a cost on carbon waste.

Tanaka said the U.S. Senate needed to pass an energy bill, already given initial approval by the House of Representatives, which would allow a cap-and-trade system to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions and allow companies to trade permits.

“To really achieve these (emission) targets, the U.S. certainly has to introduce carbon prices either by cap-and-trade or carbon tax,” Tanaka told Reuters.

“The Senate must pass this comprehensive energy and climate bill otherwise it cannot design a cap and trade system.”

Washington Post:

The world’s biggest emitters of greenhouse gases met a global deadline Sunday to reiterate their commitments to fight climate change. Under the Copenhagen Accord, which was struck in December, industrialized and major developing nations had to declare by Jan. 31 how much they would cut their emissions by 2020. Spanish Secretary of State Teresa Rivera Rodriguez, whose country holds the European Union presidency, said the pledges will turn the accord “into something meaningful.”

Bloomberg:

Companies must consider the effects of global warming and efforts to curb climate change when disclosing business risks to investors, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said.

Guidelines approved today require companies to weigh the impact of climate-change laws and regulations when assessing what information to include in corporate filings, the commission said. The SEC is responding to investors who said companies aren’t providing enough data on the potential risks to their profits and operations from environmental-protection laws.

“I do not believe that public companies today are doing the best job they possible can do with respect to their current mandated disclosures,” SEC Commissioner Elisse Walter said today. The decision “is designed to improve the quality of disclosures filed by U.S. public companies for the benefit of investors.”

In the 3-to-2 vote, the commission said companies in the U.S. should also consider international accords, indirect effects such as lower demand for goods that produce greenhouse gases, and physical impacts such as the potential for increased insurance claims in coastal regions as a result of rising sea levels.

Here are Chairman Mary Schapiro’s full remarks on this:

Next, we will consider a recommendation to provide public companies with interpretive guidance on existing disclosure requirements as they relate to business or legislative events on the issue of climate change.

An interpretive release, as this is known, does not create new legal requirements or modify existing ones — it is merely intended to provide clarity and enhance consistency.

To that end, the Commission is not making any kind of statement regarding the facts as they relate to the topic of “climate change” or “global warming.” And, we are not opining on whether the world’s climate is changing; at what pace it might be changing; or due to what causes. Nothing that the Commission does today should be construed as weighing in on those topics.

The Commission is also not considering amending well-defined rules concerning public company reporting obligations, nor redefining long-standing interpretations of materiality. These rules and interpretations have served investors well for decades, and provide both the framework and flexibility necessary to apply to changing facts and circumstances. If something has a material impact on a company then it is something that needs to be disclosed — that has always been the case.

What the Commission is considering is whether to provide guidance that can help public companies in determining what does and does not need to be disclosed.

The discussions, debates and decisions that are taking place in the U.S. and elsewhere on this topic have implications under our existing, long-standing disclosure rules.

It is neither surprising nor especially remarkable for us to conclude that of course a company must consider whether potential legislation — whether that legislation concerns climate change or new licensing requirements — is likely to occur. If so, then under our traditional framework the company must then evaluate the impact it would have on the company’s liquidity, capital resources, or results of operations, and disclose to shareholders when that potential impact will be material. Similarly, a company must disclose the significant risks that it faces, whether those risks are due to increased competition or severe weather. These principles of materiality form the bedrock of our disclosure framework.

Today’s guidance will help to ensure that our disclosure rules are consistently applied, regardless of the political sensitivity of the issue at hand, so that investors get reliable information.