Rick Santorum has surged to the front of the Republican pack in recent weeks. (Source: Flickr/Gage Skidmore)

While most scientists do their best to avoid politics whenever they can, the reverse is not true – particularly the campaign to win the nomination for US Republican Presidential candidate.

And it could be more spicy tonight in the latest TV debate.

Favourite Mitt Romney is flagging, Newt Gingrich is running out of puff and cash, leaving Rick Santorum in an unlikely lead.

Santorum has repeatedly dismissed climate change science with a number of poorly researched comments, easily pulled apart under the lightest scrutiny.

Some say the brand of evangelical Catholicism preached by Santorum is as divisive and hate-fuelled and as any other form of fundamentalism. Others regard him as a man true to his beliefs and principles.

In his own words: “You can say I’m a hater. But I would argue I’m a lover.”

RTCC runs through some of the key comments from potential Presidential candidate Santorum during the campaign so far.

Climate Change

“I believe the earth gets warmer and I also believe the earth gets cooler.”

“Pick a point in history where you haven’t seen a change in the climate. The climate does change.”

A good start but why do you get the sense there’s a “but” coming up.

“And I think history points out that it does that [climate does change] and that the idea that man, through the production of CO2 – which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas – is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd.”

“Why have we decided that this one particular factor, carbon dioxide, is in fact that tip of the tail that wags the entire dog. Why from a scientific point of view do we make the assertion that this is in fact what is the case when there is a whole lot of other factors out there that could be affecting it?”

Assuming for a moment that it’s not absurd, what might Santorum do about it…

“Do any of the proposed solutions put forward by Al Gore and his friends do anything to solve the problem? Even the scientists who support the theory will admit to you that it doesn’t do anything to solve the problem.”

Santorum says climate change is about "political science" not "climate science" (Source: Flickr/Gage Skidmore)

The scientists (which he disregards) say there is no solution (to the problem he doesn’t think exists). If you can piece this contradiction together, he is still wrong. The path required is clear. The UN climate talks in Durban last year reinforced the fact that 194 countries are in agreement.

Most recently, Santorum described climate science as “phony studies” and “political science” and strongly rejected accusations that he is anti-science. Presumably he is just anti-American Geophysical Union, anti-Geological Society of America, anti-American Meteorological Society not to mention a swathe of Academies of Science from Asia, Africa and Europe.

“We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit.”

Iran’s state media, PressTV, has referred to Santorum as a “flat-earther” when it comes to climate change. But he clearly adopts a similar line on other issues too. Here’s a best of the rest.

Evolution

“What we should be teaching are the problems and holes and I think there are legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution. And what we need to do is to present those fairly from a scientific point of view. And we should lay out areas in which the evidence supports evolution and the areas in the evidence that does not.”

Contraception

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative.”

Israel and Palestine

“There are no Palestinians. All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land.”

Equality

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

Abortion

“I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion, I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion, should be criminally charged for doing so.”

China

“I don’t want to go to a trade war, I want to beat China. I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business.”

A recent poll by AP/GfK asked prospective voters who they would vote for in November if it was Santorum versus Obama. The incumbent president won 52% to 43%.

It perhaps says something about the Republican field of candidates that none of the four remaining Republicans could get within seven percentage points of Obama. Despite Santorum’s lead against his GOP rivals, his electability among the US public is only 32% accordig to Gallup (Romney scored 54%).

Santorum has enjoyed relative shelter so far with the two former leaders and the outspoken Rick Perry stealing the headlines. Closer scrutiny, starting with tonight’s debate, could make or break his charge.

Religion, class, faith, culture and gender will all play some part in shaping this new document – but will the environment gain fair representation?

Waleed Mansour is an Egyptian environmentalist – and below is his take on the key message he would like to see those legislators take forward.

Desertification is a growing concern in Egypt (Picture: wilhelmja/Creative Commons)

As we near the stage of drafting our constitution, it is becoming imperative to strengthen the need for steering public debate to the importance of having a constitution that is geared toward sustainable development.

We need to raise public awareness of the importance of sustainable development, but we also need political parties to be conscious of such a global concern.

There is an ongoing movement around the world to focus on sustainable development due to pressing environmental challenges, such as the rising prices of energy, climate change and the consequent decrease in the amount of rain, to name only a few.

In order to attain sustainability, three pillars — namely the environment, societal concerns and the economy — should be given equal attention. This means that a decision to build a road, for example, should help the environment, society and the economy equally.

Perils of eco-dictatorship

If the community is not happy about the road even though it has a good economic reward, the road should not be built; if the road has a good environmental impact but not an economic one, it also should not be built.

Such a strategy could reduce the chance of what we call eco-dictatorship.

The call for sustainable development is in fact at the heart of the Egyptian revolution. Many of the problems we faced in Egypt prior to the 25 January revolution that persist today are environmental.

In addition to the energy crisis and inflation, there is also the continuous deterioration of the quality of life, such as the bad quality of food and fresh produce in the market, the increasing health problems related to pollution, and the general decline in hygiene and sanitation, especially with regard to inefficient waste management.

All of these problems are interlinked, and they are outcomes of unsustainable government policies that failed to help Egyptians live decent lives.

Future generations

What Egypt needs is a government that takes environmental concerns seriously through having a long-term strategy of conservation of all natural resources and human capital.

We need to be able to implement environmental conservation projects related to renewable energy and water conservation, proper agriculture and food security policies to salvage our soil and water resources.

We need to find timely solutions to our problems and take into account the rights of upcoming generations, which have not had the chance to participate in the decision-making process of this country; we do not want our legacy for the future generations to be nothing but depreciated resources.

The world — not only Egypt — currently faces two major challenges, namely the energy crisis and food security, both of which fall under the umbrella of climate change.

Because climate change has already happened, we need to adapt to it and construct solutions to safeguard the livelihood of this country.

Solutions should be valid for both long- and short-term implementation. Examples of the solutions for energy and food security issues in Egypt include switching to renewable energy resources as soon as possible.

For example, we can invest in solar energy at least for municipal purposes, like lighting or water heating, and investing in sustainable agriculture in the sense of preserving the country’s local food varieties and adopting proper water management plans.

Conservation of natural resources

Endorsing sustainable development policies is a necessity in Egypt, given the following development challenges the country will face in the coming decade: rising sea levels, deterioration of soil quality, inundation of the Delta, severe ecosystem sensitivity and energy crises, among others.

The previous bundle of problems could be typical for many other countries, but we certainly have them in Egypt as well.

The depletion of our natural resources, such as minerals, crude oil and, of course, natural gas, is another challenge.

It is therefore imperative that the new constitution should take into account that the development needs of the country have changed gravely in recent decades, and thus the policy priorities need to be geared toward finding sustainable solutions to Egypt’s problems.

Thus, Parliament’s priorities should not be focused on issues of identity or political ideologies. Public debates are currently centred on the need to have a democratically conscious constitution, while the greater challenge, I believe, is to lobby for a constitution that is environmentally conscious.

This requires focusing on writing a constitution that is intended to serve the people through sustainable development and environmental perspectives, not just to safeguard the interests of a specific party that dominates Parliament.

HAVE YOUR SAY: What would you include in a ‘green’ constitution?

An environmentally based constitution will help give a unique flavour to the future of Egypt and the political development act currently being established. It will make citizens more sensitive to many aspects of their lives, creating a more globally conscious citizenry.

The constitution should set a guideline for environmental protection and state that policies should be adopted to ensure air quality, health and water standards, all of which are now considered environmental human rights.

The constitution should also include a statute on the protection of the environment, limiting pollution concentration in the local environment of the country. It should also include a statute that criminalizes environmental pollution.

Using sustainable development as a benchmark for decision making will provide environmentally conscious solutions to the country and will ameliorate the environmental conditions of Egypt, making it a special place to live and invest in.

This includes providing solutions to our energy crises based on the use of renewable energies that are less carbon-intensive and more dependent on resources that cost less, in addition to a proper agriculture agenda that prevents soil degradation and secures food for everyone.

This will also cascade into solving health problems of the average Egyptian citizen, who currently suffers from indoor and outdoor pollution. And finally, it will ensure our preparedness for climate change.

Sustainability involves a proper decision-making process in which there is no tension between a majority and a minority, but only agreements based on scientific evidence that shape the economic model of the country.

Finally, revolutionary Egypt needs to be part of major global debates, such as the international climate negotiations, which is only possible if our constitution takes environmental issues seriously.

Waleed Mansour is an Egyptian environmentalist. He has worked at the UNIDO and the World Bank regional center for disaster risk reduction. In the meantime, he is a consultant for Heinrich Boll Stiftung of Germany’s Green Party.

This article was first published in the Egypt Independent

Canada fears this move could set a precedent, and further hit their industry following the US Government’s move to block the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Texas.

Industry also objects to the EU plan, and has put forward proposals to weaken its impact on oil production in Canada.

RTCC asked Dr Harald Heubaum, lecturer in Global Energy and Climate Policy at the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at SOAS to explain why oil sands are such a critical issue.

The EU proposes to highlight the environmental damage caused by tar sands

RTCC: Oil sands have received increased attention recently. Large oil companies, including Shell and BP, have grown their operations in Canada. What drives these developments?

Harald Heubaum: A lot of progress has indeed been made. This is due to high oil prices and lower production costs than in the mid-2000s. It is generally assumed that new oil sand operations require an oil price of $70 per barrel or more to be economically feasible. However, technological advances mean that some existing operations provide a return on investment with oil prices as low as $50 per barrel.

For the last three years, global oil prices have been well in excess of those margins. Brent crude, the global benchmark, stood above $100 per barrel for most of 2011 and is now above $120 following problems with Iran. It is unlikely that prices will drop dramatically in the near to mid-term future. Oil sand projects are likely to remain economically viable for some time to come.

RTCC: Economic viability does not always translate to political support. Has continued political opposition slowed down industrial ambitions?

HH: The political situation in North America is mixed. The last Canadian general election provided Prime Minister Harper with a clear parliamentary majority, the first time a sitting government has achieved this feat in more than a decade. The Harper government has been very supportive of continued oil sand development in Alberta’s Athabasca region – last December it approved Total SA’s Joselyn North mining project following a six year review.

In the United States, oil sand-derived fuel has been hotly debated for the last two years, pitting environmentalists and some landowners against business and labour groups. The issue in contention is the Keystone XL pipeline project which would transport the crude oil from its production sites in Alberta to the refineries along Texas’ Gulf Coast.

The Obama administration has rejected the pipeline for now, citing insufficient time to determine whether Keystone XL is in the national interest. However, the company behind the pipeline, TransCanada Corp., can reapply for a permit if the project is rerouted to avoid passing through the Nebraska Sandhills, which sit atop the Ogallala aquifer, the main source of freshwater in the Midwest. The Nebraska legislature recently passed a proposal to determine such a route and TransCanada has declared its intention to take the process forward.

A new proposal may well receive the administration’s support given the project’s potential for job creation and greater energy security. However, a final decision will probably not come until 2013, after the presidential election in the autumn.

RTCC: Environmental concerns have not just been raised about the routing of the Keystone pipeline but about the process of mining oil sands itself. Environmental Defence has called the Alberta oil sands “the most destructive project on Earth.” Is this large scale environmental destruction for just a few more drops of oil?

HH: The environmental impact of a barrel of oil derived from oil sands is undoubtedly high. The mining process is exceptionally invasive even when using the latest technologies and we cannot yet tell how the effects on once pristine lands and local faunas will play out in the long run. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, environmental regulation has had to play catch up with a comparatively sudden scaling-up of industrial activity.

The carbon footprint is high, too. Oil sand-derived fuel generally emits more CO2 over its entire lifecycle (“well to wheels”) than fuel produced in conventional ways. However, current GHG emissions from the oil sands industry in Alberta make up no more than five percent of Canada’s entire emissions or the equivalent of one half of one percent of total US emissions.

Canada recently left the Kyoto Protocol to avoid billions of dollars in fines it would otherwise have incurred as a result of emitting more, not less, carbon dioxide than ever before. However, it did not miss its Kyoto targets solely because of mining operations in its western province. Those emissions are actually still quite small.

RTCC: Are climate change activists barking up the wrong tree then?

HH: No, there is a real cause for concern. The question is whether oil sand-related emissions will grow, stabilize or even decline over time. Over the past 20 years, improvements in efficiency and technological advancements have already reduced the GHG-intensity of oil production in Alberta.

If implemented on a larger scale, carbon capture and storage (CCS) could make a significant contribution to cutting the carbon footprint further. However, other countries such as Venezuela, Russia and Colombia are also endowed in rich unconventional oil reserves and if these are developed without regard to climate change and appropriate regulation, the global impact will be more noticeable.

RTCC: Is a shift away from oil sands conceivable?

HH: If the world community got tough on global climate change and started to seriously wean itself off its addiction to oil as a transport fuel. Neither one is likely to happen anytime soon. COP-17 in Durban produced an agreement to agree a new legally binding treaty by 2015 which would then, ideally, come into force by 2020.

Let’s assume that this actually happens as planned. A new compliance period would then not start for a number of years, for example 2025. This would mean at least another 13 years of largely unmitigated GHG emissions and a continued legislative and regulatory patchwork around the world. There is no immediate threat unless we put a sufficiently high price on carbon.

RTCC: Let’s move on to the EU where a vote on a fuel law classifying oil sands as highly polluting is coming up tomorrow. Would a decision to label oil sand-derived fuel as one of the most carbon-intensive fuel options have an impact on consumer demand?

HH: Not directly. The proposal assigned a default GHG value of 107 grams per megajoule as opposed to 87.5 grams for conventional sources of oil but the EU does not currently import any significant amounts of this fuel so European consumers are not yet affected. There are two other principal reasons for the move. First, the Climate Commissioner and others would like to pre-empt the development of oil sands located within EU Member States such as Estonia.

Second, labelling oil sands as highly polluting would not only threaten future access to European markets but could prod other jurisdictions into taking action as well. We can see this happening in California which in early December 2011 decided to back the EU’s plans. Other states followed California’s lead on fuel-efficiency standards in the past. This could well be a similar situation.

Multinational oil companies and the government in Ottawa are rightly worried that the labelling of oil sands coupled with low-carbon fuel standards in the EU and other OECD countries would make emissions-intensive fuels less desirable and cut into profits. Hence the recent attempts to prevent the EU proposal via the UK Foreign Office and the reorientation towards Asian markets, where such regulation does not exist.

RTCC: Any prediction on how the vote will break down tomorrow?

HH: That’s hard to say. For the draft fuel law to pass the fuel quality committee, 255 votes out of 345 are needed. At this point it is not clear whether the anti-oil sand camp has those votes locked up. The lobbying and arm-twisting will certainly continue right up to the last minute. It may well pass but if there is no majority support then the Council of Ministers will take up the matter in June, so tomorrow is not a make or break.

I think it is also important to keep in mind that even if the fuel law does not pass this year, the issue will not go away anytime soon. Opponents of oil sand production have been quite effective in setting the agenda and we can expect further action despite a potential setback.

Some US airlines could generate an extra £1m a year per EU route from additional surcharges (Source: flickr/Andrei Dimofte)

Could airlines profit from the EU carbon trading scheme? Guest authors Annie Petsonk and Adam Peltz of The Environmental Defence Fund, say they could pocket millions.

This week, more than two dozen countries, including the United States, are meeting in Moscow to discuss their opposition to Europe’s pioneering law to cut global warming pollution from aviation.

On the agenda for the Moscow meeting are a number of topics that have been lobbied for by the US aviation industry, which has said complying with the EU law will be too expensive.

US airlines have been complaining for years that complying with the EU law will cost them billions of dollars, but we’ve also seen a slew of studies that show the airlines could save money – and even profit – by participating in the system.

So we commissioned EDF’s economics team to run some numbers.

When our economists compared the four criteria below, we found that airlines that comply with the law can actually make money.

1] airlines’ projected 2012 emissions (based on the 2010 data they submitted to the EU and the industry’s projected 3% annual emissions growth rate),

2] data on the free emissions allowances the EU is giving to the airlines, and

3] current prices (from Feb. 15) for emissions credits in the EU carbon market with

4] the recent $3-per-leg fare increase the airlines added last month,

Based on these data:

United Airlines stands to turn a profit of $0.73 to $2.36 per ticket, or in the range of $88,000 to $287,000 a year on its flights from Washington, D.C. (Dulles) to Brussels.

American Airlines stands to reap anywhere from $1.15 to $2.50 per passenger, or $700,000 to $1.2 million a year on its flights from New York (JFK) to London Heathrow.

Delta Air Lines, which was the first carrier to impose a surcharge, could profit between $1.02 and $2.53 per ticket from Minneapolis, or $449,000 to $1.1 million annually on its Minneapolis to Amsterdam flight.

Also on RTCC.org:
News: 20 Feb, 2012: Russia to ban airlines from carbon trading
Comment: 6 Feb, 2012: Durban Platform at stake in airline levy row
News: 21 Dec, 2011: EU throws out US objections to aviation carbon fees

US carriers aren’t the only ones finding profit in the emissions cap; airlines around the world could be poised to profit, too:

Etihad Airways’ $3/ticket surcharge could net between $1.10 and $2.52 per passenger per flight* from Abu Dhabi to London.

AirAsia X’s surcharge of $6.50 could produce a profit of $2.05 to $5.25 per passenger per flight* from Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) to Paris.

Aeroflot Russian Airlines, if it matched United’s $3 fare increase, could make between $2.26 and $2.69 per ticket* on a typical flight from Moscow to Berlin.

It’s critical to remember the purpose of the EU’s law is to cut pollution. The aviation sector is growing so rapidly that, if emissions from aviation were left unregulated, they would quadruple from 2005 levels by 2050; the EU law will cut 183 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2020, the equivalent to taking 30 million cars off the road every year.

The data show that airlines’ claims of suffering a disproportionate burden and punitive costs to meet the cap are wrong. Savvy companies will see the law not as the burden that it isn’t, but as the opportunity that it is, and we would hope the airlines direct any profits to technology that can help them further reduce their emissions and fly cleaner and greener.

(*These airlines’ ticket sales numbers are not publicly available so we are unable to calculate their potential annual profits.)

Annie Petsonk is International Counsel with The Environmental Defence Fund

Adam Peltz is a Legal Fellow with The Environmental Defence Fund

Artist: Patrick Chappatte
First Published: World Meteorological Organisation Calendar

While most of the scientific world now agrees on the exisitence of climate change and the human causes of it, there is still some debate amongst a minority.

Climate sceptics argue that the current changes being witnessed in the Earth’s atmosphere are natural variations, and not a result of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

The authors of the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, however, accuse climate change “sceptics” of trying to sow seeds of doubt in public opinion in order to halt any meaningful social or political progress to reduce the impact of human carbon emissions.

The World Meteorological Organisation Calendar is published by Entico in partnership with the World Metrological Organisation (WMO) and is sponsered by Denso, with cartoons from the artist Patrick Chappatte.

A Viking Longhouse in Iceland, where Norse settlers flourished. (Source:Wiki/Thomas Ormston)

Norse settlers facing economic, political and climatic turmoil more than 600 years ago, could teach modern societies how best to respond to these shifts, according to scientists.

A study of the archaeological remains and past environments of old societies in Greenland and Iceland found that flexibility was key.

Rejecting established trade links in favour of more sustainable options and diversifying both wild and agricultural food sources served Norse societies best.

Icelandic communities developed a new, European style economy built on wool and fishing. Settlers in Greenland however, maintained the traditional medieval Viking economy built on luxury items such as walrus ivory. The results were catastrophic.

“Our future will in part be shaped by climate change, and to prepare for it we can learn valuable lessons from how societies of the past have adapted and even flourished amid a backdrop of difficult conditions,” said Professor Andy Dugmore of Edinburgh University, who presented the findings at the American Association for the Advancement of Science this week.

“Most importantly we can understand how a combination of climate and non-climate events can lead to a perfect storm and trigger unexpected and dramatic social change,” added Dugmore.