As Grist reports, genuine Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent was in the same town square earlier in the day, extolling his company’s efforts to reduce its carbon footprint.

Also according to Grist, about twenty people in the trailer took the Yes Men/Coca Cola pledge:

“I, [name], with respect for crimes against people and the planet, from this day forward, for the rest of my living days will never, ever, drink Coca-Cola again until the Coca-Cola company ceases and entirely stops stealing the water from communities in India and stops union-busting in Colombia and ceases and desists entirely from relentless and absurd greenwashing like a ‘bottle of hope.’”

A YouTube record of the absurdity:

The Yes Men reportedly supplied links to back up their claims against Coca Cola’s approach to labor and the environmental. Read here, here, and here.

The Yes Men made waves earlier this fall when they held a larger phony press conference on behalf of the global-warming denying U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Colorado businesses have joined major national corporations such as Nike in breaking with the Chamber over its stance.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Check it out. Here are the instructions:

Click on one of the boxes below to participate in a conversation… The boxes are sized according to the number of comments posted about each topic over the previous 24 hours. You can also mouse over the silhouettes to see a sampling of recent comments.

The numbers of comments are reasonable so far. They’re in the hundreds. In other words, there’s none of the 3,000 over-the-top virtual scream fests that you see happening at least once a week at the HuffingtonPost, for example.

Popular Copenhagen thread topics today: Science of Global Warming, Prospects for a Treaty, Putting a Price on Carbon, Rich and Poor Nations.

It’s more sober country than the commentlands located elsewhere on the web. The interface sets the mood.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

EPA HQ in DC

Environmental groups are lauding EPA administrator Lisa Jackson’s recent declaration that greenhouse gas emissions pose a public health threat, and in Colorado, the natural gas industry is nervously eyeing the federal agency’s move to review how it regulates emissions from drilling and production operations.

The Obama administration has made it clear it would rather legislate than regulate – wary no doubt of the O&G industry’s proclivity to litigate – but getting a climate change bill out of the Senate that comes close to the House version will be tough.

There was some movement late last week with the tri-partisan plan floated by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass), co-sponsor of Boxer-Kerry, Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), but it was viewed by some critics are short on specifics and long on posturing to show Copenhagen the Senate is serious. Mostly it differed from the House bill by promising more breaks for coal, nuclear and offshore drilling.

Developing nations seemed less than impressed Monday, threatening to walk out on Copenhagen unless wealthier nations producing the most greenhouse gas emissions make more substantive concessions. This despite energy secretary Steven Chu’s announcement that industrialized nations will commit to spending $350 million over five years ($85 million from the U.S.) to increase access to clean energy technology in the developing world.

Meanwhile, Danish police continue to crack down on massive protests estimated at up to 60,000 strong on Saturday.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Brown berated a Climate Change Conference promo video as alarmist. With its intentionally over-the-top dramatic music and scenes of storm-wrought disaster, it’s easy to imagine why it struck a chord with Brown.

Michael Brown

Brown called the video “outrageous” saying it “demonstrates the lengths these people will go to instilling fear among the populations of the world, and loathing toward scientists, politicians, and individuals who do not believe mankind is causing global warming. This is a cult.”

Brown has a law degree and worked for two years at FEMA before resigning in disgrace. Previous to his abbreviated tenure at FEMA, he was Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association Arabian Horse Federation for 12 years. He also resigned from that position in controversy. He has had no scientific training of note.

Nevertheless, he writes confidently on the topic of climate science:

Humankind does not have the power to change climate, or in the words of the latest EPA pronouncement that it will ‘regulate the climate’ through limits on carbon dioxide. Ludicrous. EPA may think it’s powerful enough to regulate the climate, but I sure as heck don’t.

Scientists around the world continue to endorse research that climate change is real and caused primarily by human use of fossil fuels. Media Matters for America provides a list of scientific organizations that reaffirmed support for the research in the wake of “Climategate,” where emails ridiculing climate change deniers and eschewing their writings were leaked to the press.

From Media Matters:

Following the release of the reportedly stolen emails, more than 1,700 scientists from the United Kingdom signed a statement responding “to the ongoing questioning of core climate science and methods.” It said: “We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.”

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

The lightning-rod GOP vice presidential candidate from 2008 had this to say on facebook Monday:

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (Split Estate)

“I commend Interior Secretary Salazar’s decision today to conditionally approve drilling at three exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea off the northwest coast of Alaska; it’s a decision that’s been a long time coming. The area north of the Arctic Circle contains some of the world’s richest oil and gas reserves. U.S. Geological Survey researchers estimate that it contains 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 83 billion barrels of undiscovered oil.

“The international community recognizes the potential of Arctic off-shore drilling; it’s about time our government allowed us to compete with them by developing these rich reserves in an environmentally responsible way. As I said last April in my testimony before the Secretary during a federal hearing in Anchorage, “Alaska’s oil and gas resources can and should be a major part of the implementation of any creditable energy plan for our nation. Alaska has proven that these resources can be developed safely, but Arctic exploration and development is a slow, demanding process. Delays or major restrictions in accessing these resources for environmentally responsible development are not in the national interest or the interests of the State of Alaska.”

“As an Alaskan and an American, I am very grateful for the decision today because it is a step in the right direction toward prosperity for Alaska and energy independence and security for America.”

In a press release Wednesday from the Indigenous Environmental Network ahead of Salazar’s address today at the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen, other Alaska natives had this to say:

“Alaska Natives from the Chukchi Sea to Copenhagen are reeling today after the announcement that the Obama administration has approved Royal Dutch Shell Plc’s (RDSa.L) plan to drill for oil off Alaska’s northwest coast as early as next summer. In a move revealing of the U.S. agenda at Copenhagen, the Department of the Interior has endorsed drilling for fossil fuels in the climate-effected ecosystems of the Arctic, where global warming already impacts Alaska Natives and entire villages are in danger of losing their lands and way of life.

“’Shell says ‘the Chukchi Sea could be home to some of the most prolific, undiscovered hydrocarbon basins in North America,’ but we’re here to remind Salazar and Shell that it is our home and our lives that will be devestated by the drilling,’” said Faith Gemmill, Executive Director of REDOIL, who is attending the Copenhagen Climate Talks. “’More fossil fuel drilling will only bring more pollution to the Chukchi Sea, and ultimately, more devastating climate change to the world. Salazar should know: We must leave those fossil fuels in the ground and invest in real renewable solutions that uphold Indigenous Peoples rights.’”

REDOIL is described in the release as “a network and movement of Alaska Natives who are challenging the fossil fuel and mining industry and demanding our rights to a safe and healthy environment conducive to subsistence. The REDOIL network consists of grassroots Alaska Natives of the Inupiat, Yupik, Aleut, Tlingit, Gwich’in, Eyak and Denaiana Athabascan tribes.”

Palin has also previously said offshore drilling in the Arctic will actually help with global warming.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

According to the Associated Press, the latest announcement comes in response to a January complaint filed by WildEarth Guardians and the San Juan Citizens Alliance arguing the EPA hasn’t updated oil and gas drilling air quality standards for years despite increased a recent drilling boom in Colorado.

The groups also contend the feds should set standards for greenhouse gas emissions caused by the industry. An industry trade group based in Denver, the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States, countered that oil and gas operators have made major strides in reducing emissions associated with production.

Jackson, meanwhile, continued to answer questions about the timing of the EPA greenhouse gas emissions announcement, made just ahead of the ongoing United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen.
Speaking there today, Jackson said the timing was coincidental and that any EPA regulation of greenhouses gases would compliment badly needed legislation currently being debated in the U.S. Senate. The House has already passed a climate change bill.

Some European nations are viewing the EPA announcement as a sign by the Obama administration that it will regulate emissions regardless of whether Congress produces a tough climate bill, complete with cap and trade.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Marc Ambinder’s already done us the favor of a point-by-point takedown of her column — which comes to the forceful conclusion, “The president should boycott Copenhagen” — so I’ll limit my commentary to two quick additional thoughts.

First, the column uses the words “agenda” and “politicized” three times each (not to mention variants thereof) in describing the work of the world’s foremost environmental scientists. And the question that always enters my mind is, what exactly is their agenda? What could well-educated and respected scientists hope to gain from a massive conspiracy that, in Palin’s opinion, will unleash untold economic harm on the populace while providing no benefits in return? Do they hope for prestige? (If so, Palin would likely answer, it hasn’t worked, since they’ve brought their entire field to what she calls a “tipping point” — in a bad way.) Or perhaps jobs for their friends in the Chinese alternative energy industry? (A potentially more rational argument, except that I’ve never heard anyone draw these ties.) Seriously, I’m scratching my head.

And second, my favorite two lines of the column:

[W]e can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs.

So it’s possible that anthropogenic climate change is real, but even so, the economic costs of doing something to stop it are much greater than the potential benefits. Even if these benefits include saving hundreds of millions of coast-dwelling people from the ravages of rising sea levels and protecting world civilization as we know it? Can those really be “far outweighed” by lower energy costs, even if we accept Republicans’ wildly inflated (and refuted) estimate that a cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon emissions could set every American family back by $3,100 a year?

If you give her credit for nothing else, you can’t say Sarah Palin doesn’t have the power to spark a lively debate.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

The administration had yet to commit to even attending the Dec. 7-18 conference, let alone coming with a concrete emissions reduction target, but now, according to the Times, Obama will deliver a speech there on Dec. 9 on his way to Oslo, Norway, to accept the Nobel Peace Prize the next day.

The administration had been reluctant to over-commit on emissions before the Senate debated its version of a House-passed climate change bill on the full floor. But failing to provide some U.S. direction could have torpedoed any substantial agreement coming out of Copenhagen, where 190 nations will converge to lay the groundwork for a sweeping climate change deal.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

The New York Times Monday reported the administration is struggling on whether to come up with a concrete target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change before next month’s United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.

While the House barely passed its version last summer – setting a reduction target of 17 percent below 2005 levels – the Senate version faces a much tougher fight, and right now is stacked up and stuck behind hotly debated health care reform.

The Senate version calls for a 20 percent reduction, and Sen. John Kerry told the Times Obama can safely set a target of between 17 and 20 percent ahead of Copenhagen, where it was originally hoped the administration would have a climate change bill – complete with cap and trade – in hand before attending.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post Tuesday reported fewer Americans – mostly Republicans – believe in global warming. The Post cites a poll conducted with ABC that shows overall belief in global warming dropped from 80 percent to 72 percent – still a pretty overwhelming majority.

But Republicans (76 percent down to 54) and independents (86 to 71) stopped believing by much gaudier margins than Democrats (92 to 86). Amazing what an increasingly charged political climate and a crushing global recession will do for the public’s environmental perceptions.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.