- What an idea! Let’s expand this and get Congress and state legislatures to determine their members’ salaries and perks based on effectiveness of greenhouse gas reduction programs, and the battle might just be won! Flimsy excuses would melt away, hopefully faster than the ice. - Editor
National Grid to link executive pay to carbon targets
National Grid (one of the world’s largest utilities) is planning to add environmental targets to the criteria for its executive bonus scheme. The company is carrying out a detailed audit on each of its businesses to establish what their emissions are, where they come from, and how they are measured. Once the latest audit is completed, National Grid will be able to set new carbon-reduction targets that will be used as one of the criteria for the bonus scheme. National Grid believes the move will help to drive a culture change in the company and to put green issues at the heart of the way it does business. The company has already set itself a long-term target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050 and has an intermediate target to cut emissions 45% by 2020.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6543899.ece

- In the last issue of Climate Today, we talked about including the total costs of coal- it’s not so cheap! Now a new study uncovers the costs of human life, even further altering the balance sheets. When discussing coal, don’t let anyone tell you how cheap it is, and therefore assuming we must keep using it. - Editor
Coal’s costs outweigh benefits
Coal mining costs Appalachians five times more in early deaths as the industry provides to the region in jobs, taxes and other economic benefits, according to a groundbreaking new study co-authored by a West Virginia University researcher Michael Hendryx questioning the idea that coal is good for West Virginia and other Appalachian communities, and recommends that political leaders consider other alternatives for improving the region’s economy and quality of life. Hendryx reports that the coal industry generates a little more than $8 billion a year in economic benefits for the Appalachian region. But, Hendryx and Ahern put the value of premature deaths attributable to the mining industry across the Appalachian coalfields at — by their most conservative estimate — $42 billion. “The human cost of the Appalachian coal mining economy outweighs its economic benefits,” they wrote. “Coal generates inexpensive electricity, but not as inexpensive as the price signals indicate because those prices do not include the costs to human health and productivity, and the costs of natural resource destruction.”
http://wvgazette.com/News/200906200170
For the article with a subscription Mortality in Appalachian Coal Mining Regions: The Value of Statistical Life Lost- http://www.publichealthreports.org/archives/issuecontents.cfm?Volume=124&Issue=4 

Climate change legislation pending in Congress would cost U.S. households only about $175 annually in higher energy and consumer prices, far less than the $3,100 “burden” opponents have claimed would result, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate. As recently as last month, House Republican leader John Boehner warned against legislation that he sees “saddling” consumers “with an additional $3,100 burden per family each year.” But the CBO came to a much different conclusion. Low-income households would see an average net benefit of $40, mostly through rebates and other aid, while high-income families could see added net costs of $245 per year in 2020.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE55L57O20090622?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

- This is big! Skillful negotiators must get this resolved before the December meetings! Surely, a fair compromise could be worked out- the planet is at stake! - Editor
US draws line with China on climate technology
Access to green technology is becoming a growing stumbling block in global efforts to fight climate change, with US lawmakers bristling at what they see as China’s attempt to “steal” US know-how. China and India have led calls for developed nations to share technology to help them battle global warming. The US House of Representatives this month unanimously voted to prevent the Copenhagen treaty from “weakening” US intellectual property rights on a wind, solar and other eco-friendly technologies. Representative Mark Kirk, a Republican on a recent trip to China, said that climate change was the most contentious issue during talks with Chinese leaders. Kirk said the Chinese essentially were seeking “the stealing of all intellectual property” related to energy efficiency and climate change. Congressman Rick Larsen, a member of President Barack Obama’s Democratic Party who authored the measure, said the United States was caught between concern both over the climate and its soaring trade deficit with China.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJxowxXuScWkFyiTNDYPlHwgkKWw

QUOTE
“American agriculture faces profound and painful challenges if nothing is done to curb global pollution.”
Jane Lubchenco, NOAA administrator and undersecretary of Commerce

- This report has been in the headlines, and here are links for both a video of the press conference and the report itself. - Editor
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States
This web page will lead you through the content of the most comprehensive and authoritative report summarizing the science and the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. It focuses on climate change impacts in different regions of the U.S. and on various aspects of society and the economy such as energy, water, agriculture, and health. It’s also a report written in plain language, with the goal of better informing public and private decision making at all levels. In addition to discussing the impacts of climate change in the U.S., the report also highlights the choices we face in response to human-induced climate change. It is clear that impacts in the United States are already occurring and are projected to increase in the future, particularly if the concentration of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to rise. This report provides many of the scientific underpinnings for effective decisions to be made – at the national and at the regional level.
For a bit tedious one hour video of scientists explaining the report- http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts 
For full report or by topic- http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/download-the-report

Climate change is affecting poor people around the world today. This December, world leaders are meeting in Copenhagen to negotiate a new global climate deal. It’s up to all of us to make sure the deal is fair and safe for people living in poverty. So whether you’re a steward, campaigner, volunteer or festival goer, get your blue paint job at the Oxfam tent. The campaigners will help you take a snapshot and your photo will be added to a massive petition; you’ll be making sure the Prime Minister gets the message that it’s time for bold and genuine action on climate change.
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get_involved/festivals/index.html

- This scientific article states that “outlet-glacier dynamics” are not well understood, leading to uncertainties in our models of ice-sheet response to climate change. This may sound dull; however, this lack of basic understanding has lead to the serious underestimating of the speed of sea level rise, which markedly dulls the reality of urgency. - Editor
Study warns of cataclysmic melting of glaciers
U.S. scientists who have reconstructed a cataclysmic glacial meltdown in prehistoric Canada say Nunavut’s Sam Ford Fiord is also a sentinel of danger in the age of climate change, showing just how quickly the planet’s massive coastal glaciers could disappear and send global sea levels surging. Their study, published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience, says the rapid melting of the fiord’s colossal, kilometre-deep glacier about 9,500 years ago is proof that similar features found today in Greenland, Canada and Antarctica could be lost in a geologic instant- fast enough that the scientists are sounding an alarm about the present-day implications. If modern glaciers do this for several decades, this would rapidly raise global sea level, intercepting coastal populations.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Technology/Study%20warns%20cataclysmic%20melting%20glaciers/1721943/story.html
For the article- http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q-1=NGEO&sp-q=bini&sp-c=25&sp-m=0&sp-s=date_descending&include-collections=journals_nature%2Ccrawled_content&exclude-collections=journals_palgrave%2Clab_animal&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-sfvl-field=subject%7Cujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-p=all

- The twist of having the focus be on the conspiracy that has been going on for years is fascinating. We all pollute in our own ways, but certain major corporations have deliberately tried to, and continue to, fool the public. - Editor
Alaska’s Soon-To-Be Climate Refugees Sue Energy Companies for Relocation
Kivalina, a small Inupiat village in northwestern Alaska, is being forced to relocate. Its 400 residents will shortly become some of the world’s first climate refugees. And they’re taking a rather novel route for paying for the move: They’re suing a group of energy companies for creating a public nuisance and for conspiracy—that is, for funding research to “prove” there is no link between climate change and human activity. The case, Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., et al., went to court a couple weeks ago in California and could be enormously important. It is one of the first lawsuits tied to anthropogenic global warming that seeks to use conspiracy law to press for civil damages from trans-national corporations—in this case, up to $400 million, the upper-bound estimate for relocation costs. Kivalina is endangered because thinning sea ice and surging seas threaten its territorial integrity. Waves that were once blocked by sea ice lap and slam into the community’s buildings regularly. It’s not total non-sense that the companies that profited most from emitting carbon into the commons should have to pay for the consequences of their actions.
For the legal case- http://www.climatelaw.org/cases/country/us/kivalina/Kivalina%20Complaint.pdf
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090615/alaskas-soon-be-climate-refugees-sue-energy-companies-relocation