Celebrating Earth Day in their heart-warming way, more and more and more right-wing and climate-denialist websites are seizing upon a 2005 report from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) predicting that climate change would create 50 million "climate refugees" by 2010—and gloating that it hasn't come to pass. This is essentially a replay of last year's controversy over the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's accidental reversal of two digits in its prediction of when the world's glaciers would disappear. We've often warned against putting too much credence in the crystal ball set who think that making dire near-future predictions is a winning way to achieve political aims. But again, the critics are getting away with spinning it as "this whole global warming thing is a bunch of propaganda."

One year after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the world is witnessing the new horror of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. While last spring the world held its breath for weeks wondering when BP technicians could get the Gulf gusher under control, the world has now been similarly in grim suspense for weeks wondering when TEPCO officials can get the Fukushima radiation leaks under control. Yet, amazingly, nuclear energy's boosters are continuing even now to portray it as a viable alternative to fossil fuels. The Obama administration has pledged no retreat from (oxymoronic) "clean nuclear power" plans—even as it takes the energy industry's side in litigation seeking to hold it liable for global warming.

An April press release from the Center for Biological Diversity:

A Deadly Toll: The Gulf Oil Spill and the Unfolding Wildlife Disaster
Last year's BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe spilled 205.8 million gallons of oil and 225,000 tons of methane into the Gulf of Mexico. Approximately 25 percent of the oil was recovered, leaving more than 154 million gallons of oil at sea. In addition to the oil, nearly 2 million gallons of toxic dispersants were sprayed into the Gulf's waters. This did not actually reduce the amount of oil left in the ocean, but merely broke it into smaller particles, which may actually make the oil more toxic for some ocean life and ease its entry into the food chain.

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments April 19 in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut regarding whether electric utilities contributed to global warming. The court is being asked to decide (1) whether states and private parties have standing to seek judicially-fashioned emissions caps on five utilities for their alleged contribution to harms claimed to arise from global climate change caused by more than a century of emissions by billions of independent sources; (2) whether a cause of action to cap carbon dioxide emissions can be implied under federal common law where no statute creates such a cause of action, and the Clean Air Act speaks directly to the same subject matter and assigns federal responsibility for regulating such emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency; and (3) whether claims seeking to cap defendants' carbon dioxide emissions at "reasonable" levels, based on a court's weighing of the potential risks of climate change against the socioeconomic utility of defendants' conduct, would be governed by "judicially discoverable and manageable standards" or could be resolved without "initial policy determination[s] of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion."

From Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), April 5:

Washington, DC — A plan awaiting approval by the US Environmental Protection Agency that would dramatically increase permissible radioactive releases in drinking water, food and soil after "radiological incidents" is drawing vigorous objections from agency experts, according to agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). At issue is the acceptable level of public health risk following a radiation release, whether an accidental spill or a "dirty bomb" attack.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster has not caused the Obama administration to rethink its commitment to "clean nuclear power." Obama’s 2012 budget calls for an additional $36 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants. "The administration’s energy priorities are based solely on how best to build a 21st century, clean energy economy," White House spokesman Clark Stevens said in a statement this week. "That policy is not about picking one energy source over another." Even as his administration has ordered a review of all US reactors, Obama last week called nuclear power an "important part" of his energy agenda.

A judge for the US District Court for the District of Alaska refused March 7 to order ExxonMobil to pay an additional $92 million in damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Under a 1991 settlement agreement, Exxon paid $900 million in civil damages. The US and Alaskan government sought in 2006 to reopen the settlement agreement, saying more money was needed to clean up the crude oil that was still tainting Prince William Sound. Environmental activist Rick Steiner had filed a motion seeking court intervention to bring the re-opener process to a close. Judge H. Russel Holland, who has presided over much of the litigation stemming from 1989 spill, found that the US and Alaskan governments appeared to be close to reaching an agreement with ExxonMobil, refusing to order the payment.

Oil prices rose past $104 a barrel on March 4, marking a two-and-a-half-year high and sending stocks sharply lower on Wall Street, as fighting in Libya and unrest in the Arab world intensified. As a result of the unrest, Libya's production halved, forcing Saudi Arabia to hike output to make up for the resulting shortfall. Libya has Africa's largest oil reserves and contributed about 2% of global production before the crisis broke out. The spread of unrest to Saudi Arabia, the world's number one exporter, helped further drive up prices. (AP, Proactive Investors, The Street, March 5)