In this July 26, 2012 file photo, dead fish float in a drying pond near Rock Port, Mo. Delegates from nearly 200 countries are meeting in the Qatari capital of Doha to discuss ways slowing climate change, including by cutting emissions of greenhouse gases that scientists say are warming the planet, melting ice caps, raising sea levels, and changing rainfall patterns with impacts on floods and droughts.(AP Photo/Nati Harnik, File)

In this Thursday, Aug. 9, 2012 file photo, Jerry Johnson of Ashland uses his antique 57 Ford tractor to mow vegetation around his drying pond in Ashland, Neb. Delegates from nearly 200 countries are meeting in the Qatari capital of Doha to discuss ways slowing climate change, including by cutting emissions of greenhouse gases that scientists say are warming the planet, melting ice caps, raising sea levels, and changing rainfall patterns with impacts on floods and droughts. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik, File)

DOHA, Qatar (AP) — An area of Arctic sea ice bigger than theUnited States melted this year, according the U.N. weather agency, which said the dramatic decline illustrates that climate change is happening "before our eyes."

In a report released at U.N. climate talks in the Qatari capital of Doha, the World Meteorological Organization said the Arctic ice melt was one of a myriad of extreme and record-breaking weather events to hit the planet in 2012. Droughts devastated nearly two-thirds of the United States as well western Russia and southern Europe. Floods swamped west Africa and heat waves left much of the Northern Hemisphere sweltering.

But it was the ice melt that seemed to dominate the annual climate report, with the U.N. concluding ice cover had reached "a new record low" in the area around the North Pole and that the loss from March to September was a staggering 11.83 million square kilometers (4.57 million square miles) — an area bigger than the United States.

"The alarming rate of its melt this year highlighted the far-reaching changes taking place on Earth's oceans and biosphere," WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said. "Climate change is taking place before our eyes and will continue to do so as a result of the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which have risen constantly and again reached new records."

The dire climate news — following on the heels of a report Tuesday that found melting permafrost could significantly amplify global warming — comes as delegates from nearly 200 countries struggled for a third day to lay the groundwork for a deal that would cut emissions in an attempt to ensure that temperatures don't rise more than 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) over what they were in preindustrial times. Temperatures have already risen about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 degrees F), according to the latest report by the IPCC.

Discord between rich and poor countries on who should do what has kept the two-decade-old U.N. talks from delivering on that goal, and global emissions are still going up.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, urged delegates to heed the science and quickly take action.

"When I had the privilege in 2007 of accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC, in my speech I asked the rhetorical question, 'Will those responsible for decisions in the field of climate change at the global level listen to the voice of science and knowledge, which is now loud and clear,' " he said. "I am not sure our voice is louder today but it is certainly clearer on the basis of the new knowledge."

Delegates in Doha are bickering over money from rich countries to help poorer ones adapt to and combat the impacts of climate change, and whether developed countries will sign onto an extension of a legally binding emissions pact, the Kyoto Protocol, that would run until 2020.

A pact that once incorporated all industrialized countries except the United States would now include only the European Union, Australia and several smaller countries which together account for less than 15 percent of global emissions. And the United States is refusing to offer any bolder commitments to cut its emissions beyond a non-binding pledge to reduce emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

"For developed country parties like the United States and the European Union, the pledges and commitments ... put forward on the table are far below what is required by the science," Su Wei, a member of the Chinese delegation, told reporters. "And far below what is required by their historical responsibility."

Developing countries have said they are willing to take steps to control emissions, but that they must be given space to build their economies. Although China is the largest carbon polluter and India is rapidly catching up, both countries lag far behind the industrial countries in emissions per person and still have huge populations mired in poverty. They don't see emissions peaking anytime soon.

"We are still in the process of industrialization. We are also confronted with the enormous task of poverty eradication," said Wei, acknowledging that the country's emissions won't peak by 2020.

"In order to eradicate poverty, to try to improve the living standards, certainly we need to develop our economy," he said. "So the emissions will need to grow for a period of time."

___

Karl Ritter contributed to this report.

___

Follow Michael Casey on www.twitter.com/mcasey1 or Karl Ritter on www.twitter.com/karl_ritter

As rival lawmakers struggle to avoid the dreaded fiscal cliff in Washington, research shows that Americans will get a huge cut in their take-home pay if Congress can’t reach a deal on tax hikes and spending cuts.

In basic terms, the fiscal cliff is a set of dramatic tax increases and government program spending cuts that would decrease the annual deficit run up by the federal government.

It was put into a debt-negotiation process by lawmakers as a “poison pill,” an alternative so politically toxic that it would force Democrats and Republicans to agree, or face an angry mob of voters.

But an agreement was never reached in 2011, and now, the stark tax increases and spending cuts become law on January 1, 2013, unless a bipartisan agreement can be reached or the problem is pushed back into the hands of a new Congress.

The math behind the fiscal cliff can be quite complicated, but to see why politicians are scrambling to find a solution now, you only need to look at how the cliff would suck money out of voters’ paychecks, if the fiscal cliff goes unchecked.

As a rule, Americans don’t like taxes, and they don’t like dramatic tax actions. Look back at the original Tea Party in Boston as an example.

A study from the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, shows that tax hikes triggered by the cliff will “dock the pay” of 90 percent of Americans.

“Taxes would rise by more than $500 billion in 2013—an average of almost $3,500 per household—as almost every tax cut enacted since 2001 would expire. Middle-income households would see an average increase of almost $2,000,” the group said in an October 2012 report.

The telling factor in the Center’s report is that after-tax income will fall in every tax bracket, at an average of 6.2 percent.

In other words, instead of getting a 6 percent raise in 2013, you’d have your take-home pay docked 6 percent, before your employer even had a chance to give you a raise.

About 40 million Americans in the lowest fifth of the economy would see take-home income fall 3.7 percent. Taxpayers in the top fifth of the economy would see a 7.7 percent drop. Middle income tax payers would see take-home income fall by 4.4 percent.

The tax changes hit Americans from all angles. The biggest hit is from the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, but there are also Obama-era tax cuts and credits that expire.

There will be tax penalties for married couples and for families with children. And the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax is in the mix, which would increase taxes for 22 million people.

So income taxes would go up, payroll taxes would go up, and estate taxes and dividend taxes would go up.

And there is a new tax to pay for the Affordable Care Act.

If there is a silver lining, the federal government would bring in an extra $536 billion in 2013 to use for deficit reduction. About 54 percent of that money would come from ending the Bush-era tax cuts and from new payroll taxes.

The health-care tax would take up about 5 percent of the overall tax hikes.

To get a different look at how the tax changes would affect your family, the Tax Foundation has an online calculator that lets you put in your income and deductions and see your actual tax hike under different scenarios.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

More states ponder legal marijuana as feds loom
The Klan’s indirect role in fostering the Jazz Age
Constitution Check: Can a judge send a criminal to church instead of prison?

The Foundation has its critics, which say it is a conservative-leaning group.

But when we added data from the calculator on a married couple, with two children, making $60,000 annually, the tax-home pay number was similar to the information from the Tax Policy Center.

In most middle-income scenarios, the Foundation calculator shows take-home income falling by about 5 percent.

Its calculator also lets you pick different scenarios for dependents and dropping the Alternative Minimum Tax.

For now, President Obama and House leader John Boehner aren’t speaking, and the Democrats and Republicans are presenting the tax and spending plans to Americans, in advance of a big congressional showdown in December.

Obama is committed to extending tax cuts for the middle class and hiking taxes on wealthier citizens. The GOP is committed to deep spending cuts in “entitlement” programs as part of any fiscal cliff bargain, which would include sparse tax hikes.

The most anxious watchers are Wall Street and its partners in the global economy, which are very much aware of Congressional Budget Office projections of a 2013 recession if the fiscal cliff goes into effect.

Tiawanda Moore

We already know that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is in containment. Thanks to Hugh.

Supreme Court Inaction Boosts Right To Record Police Officers

Pentagon says "lot of money" still to be made in arms business

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Pentagon's chief weapons buyer on Wednesday reassured industry executives and investors that there was still "a lot of money" to be made in the defense business, despite mounting budget pressures that will limit spending on new arms programs.

Frank Kendall, defense undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said the budget outlook had clearly changed after a decade of continuous increases in U.S. military spending.

But he said the Pentagon's annual budget remained quite large -- and even a worst case scenario that would cut defense spending by an additional $50 billion or around 10 percent in fiscal year 2013 -- was "not the end of the world."

"We're going to work our way through this," Kendall told an investor conference hosted by Credit Suisse. "There's a lot of money still to be made."

He said the U.S. military's new strategy which sees a pivot to the Asia-Pacific region, and calls for increased investment in cybersecurity and space, would result in new growth opportunities for defense companies.

The department was also mindful of the need to maintain critical design skills in aerospace, he said.

"We're in this together. The health of the industrial base is very important," he said.

Kendall told participants that the department's latest "better buying power" initiative factored in feedback from industry, and vowed to better align profits paid to defense contractors with improved performance.

He insisted the department was not out to cut industry's profits, saying that the Pentagon viewed weapons makers as part of its overall "force structure" and was looking for more "win-win" deals that save money while rewarding good performance.

The Pentagon unveiled the initiative earlier this month, saying the U.S. military needed to "wring every possible cent of value" from the dwindling dollars in the U.S. defense budget.

Lockheed Martin Corp , Boeing Co , Northrop Grumman Corp , General Dynamics Corp , Raytheon Co and other defense firms are carefully watching the Pentagon's approach to contracts as they brace for lower defense spending after more than a decade of growth.

President Barack Obama and Congress agreed last year to cut projected national security spending by $487 billion over the next decade. The Pentagon faces another $500 billion in across-the-board cuts beginning in January unless Congress can agree over the next month on an alternative.

Kendall said he expected Congress to avert the additional budget cuts, but added that even if they kicked in as scheduled, they would not result in massive, instantaneous layoffs.

"It's a devastating thing to do to the department, but it is not something that happens overnight," he said.

Wes Bush, chief executive of Northrop Grumman, said he welcomed the Pentagon's new initiative, and was encouraged by the overall tone of Kendall's remarks at the conference.

"I think they've made a really positive step forward here," Bush told Reuters after Kendall's speech. He said he was particularly encouraged by the Pentagon's focus on maintaining a technological edge, even as budgets declined.

"We can't let go of technological superiority in a tougher environment," he said.

Michael Strianese, chief executive of L-3 Communications Holdings Inc , said Congress was likely to avert the full brunt of the budget cuts that are due to take effect in January.

"I think there'll be a much smaller version that gets enacted -- orders of magnitude smaller," he told Reuters.

(Reporting By Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Michael Perry)

By Damian Carrington, The Guardian

More than 1,000 coal-fired power plants are being planned worldwide, new research has revealed.

The huge planned expansion comes despite warnings from politicians, scientists, and campaigners that the planet's fast-rising carbon emissions must peak within a few years if runaway climate change is to be avoided and that fossil fuel assets risk becoming worthless if international action on global warming moves forward.

A coal-burning power station in Beijing, China — the country is planning to build 363 new coal-fired power plants.
Credit: David Gray/Reuters.

Coal plants are the most polluting of all power stations and the World Resources Institute (WRI) identified 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India. The capacity of the new plants add up to 1,400GW to global greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of adding another China — the world's biggest emitter. India is planning 455 new plants compared to 363 in China, which is seeing a slowdown in its coal investments after a vast building program in the past decade.

"This is definitely not in line with a safe climate scenario — it would put us on a really dangerous trajectory," said the WRI's Ailun Yang, who compiled the report, considered to be the most comprehensive in the public domain. But she said new emissions limits proposed in the U.S. and a voluntary cap on coal use in China could begin to turn the tide. "These policies would give really strong signals about the risks to the future financial performance of coal of climate policies."

Nick Robins, head of the Climate Change Centre at HSBC, said: "If you think about low-carbon energy only in terms of carbon, then things look tough [in terms of not using coal]. But if you take into account all factors, then dealing with coal [i.e. not using it] looks a little less difficult."

He cited the increasing replacement of coal with shale gas and renewable energy, tightening air pollution regulations, the gradual cleaning of economies like China's and the increasing scarcity of water, which is needed in large quantities by coal-fired power stations.

"We expect financiers and investors increasingly to include these factors into investment decisions for coal to avoid the threat of stranded assets," Robins said.

The WRI report also found that, after a slight dip during the economic troubles of 2008, the global coal trade has rebounded and rose by 13 percent in 2010. A structural shift has moved the bulk of the international coal trade from the Atlantic, serving Europe and the U.S., to the Pacific. China became a net importer of coal in 2009 but the biggest changes are fast-rising imports by Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, which all have large numbers of coal-fired plants but produce virtually no coal of their own.

However, Germany, the UK and France remain in the top 10 importers, and coal use rose 4 percent in 2011 in Europe as prices fell and plants due to close under clean air rules use up their allotted running hours. Indonesia and Australia are the largest coal exporters, with the latter planning to triple its mine and port capacity to almost 1 billion tonnes a year.

Many developing countries, such as Guatemala, Cambodia, Morocco, Namibia, Senegal and Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan, are planning new coal-fired plants even when they produce almost no coal at all. "There is a long way to go to raise awareness that you can meet energy needs from sources other than coal," said Yang.

Most new coal-fired plants will be built by Chinese or Indian companies. But new plants have largely been financed by both commercial banks and development banks. JP Morgan Chase has provided more than $16.5 billion for new coal plants over the past six years, followed by Citi ($13.8 billion). Barclays ($11.5 billion) comes in as the fifth biggest coal backer and the Royal Bank of Scotland ($10.9 billion) as the seventh. The Japan Bank for International Co-operation was the biggest development bank ($8.1 billion), with the World Bank ($5.3 billion) second.

Guy Shrubsole, at Friends of the Earth, said of the WRI report: "This is a scary number of coal-fired plants being planned. It is clear that the vested interests of coal companies are driving this forward and that they will have to be reined in by governments."

In January, the Bank of England was warned that fossil fuel sub-prime assets posed a systemic risk to economic stability, because only 20 percent of the reserves of the top 100 coal and top 100 oil and gas companies could be burned while keeping the global temperature rise under the internationally agreed limit of 2 degrees C.

Reprinted with permission from The Guardian.

• Posted in Climate, Energy, Fossil Fuels, Global
•