There’s more waste than just the chip and dip you have on your coffee table on Super Sunday. The Super Bowl includes all that electricity pumping into your HDTV. Aside from the excess of food and commercials in your own living room – there’s also the over-the-top celebrations in the host city (this year it was Indianapolis). There’s weeklong parties and free gear given out by every promotional company in the country. So – what’s an environmentally conscious fan to do? Boycott the game? Hardly – thanks to the NFL getting carbon credits in trade to offset the waste.

(The NFL) bought carbon credits to intercept the emissions resulting from transporting the Super Bowl teams to the stadium, according to NFL.com.

Go long to find the source of the renewable energy certificates. Wind farms in North Dakota actually produced the renewable energy Green Mountain Energy sold to the NFL.

Since one electron is indistinguishable from another, it’s impossible to know if any of the electricity produced in North Dakota actually reaches the Super Bowl facilities. But the NFL’s purchase of the certificates can offset the greenhouse gases associated with the energy physically used at Lucas Oil Stadium.

The certificates will blitz and sack the emission of 14,000 tons of gases during the month of Super Bowl related activities in and around Indianapolis.

The NFL went further than just buying credits, which alone would be enough.

Further engaging its fans, the NFL also organized the 1st & Green Environmental Challenge, in which participants track carbon and water savings through a website to compete for recognition on stage at the Super Bowl village. That program has saved an upwards of 1.4 million pounds of carbon and over 2.5 million gallons of water thus far.

Desert solar farms divide environmentalists (LA Times).

Two key federal agencies urge rejection of a coal mine near a national park (Washington Post).

Beware, green projects may be a UN plot (NY Times).

Water has to be trucked in to some Texas towns (NY Times).

British politicians call for cutting wind turbine subsidies (BBC).

The groundhog may have said 6 more weeks of winter, but it doesn’t have quite the same meaning this year (LA Times).

High-speed rail faces an uncertain future in California (LA Times).

The Keystone XL pipeline is central to the GOP agenda (NY Times).

Cheap natural gas has been a blessing and a curse (Washington Post).

Three states will require insurers to disclose climate change plans (NY Times).

California fuel rule sparks controversy (Washington Post).

There is WRONG and there is RIGHT. And finally, we’re talking about it.

An op-ed penned in the Wall Street Journal last week denied climate change is happening. The authors cited a report (one that the report’s author has since said is an incorrect reading of the report) that they believe shows there is little chance of a negative effect from climate change. The cite this incorrect fact:

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.

Attacks such as this have become commonplace in the climate change discourse. And finally a group of scientists is fighting back – also publishing in the Wall Street Journal. First they attacked the scientists.

While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.

And then they overwhelmed them with facts.

Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean.

In a later piece one of the authors penned an aside dealing with the “hoax” theories straight on.

But what if there were a chance that there was no reason to restrict cumulative emissions of heat-trapping gasses? What if cumulative emissions of carbon were not limited? A paper on “hedging” that I publishedin Science in 2004 with Natasha Andronova and Michael Schlesinger (see Dot Earthfor a discussion and link) indicated that starting mitigation now would be the right choice even if our analysis included a significant chance that doing nothing would turn out to be (in 2035) the right choice — that is, even with a 20% chance that climate change would turn out to be a hoax. I think that the likelihood of that is close to zero, but so what?

It is good to see scientists fight back against the skeptics and hopefully it will allow the world to move forward with climate change solutions. Doing nothing is not an option.

Winter’s been in hibernation in most places (LA Times), including Yosemite Park.

Chinese air pollution is getting more attention (NY Times).

Microplastics threaten shorelines (BBC). Meanwhile, ocean debris wreaks havoc on an exquisite Mexican beach (LA Times).

The White House proposes more energy tax breaks (NY Times).

More and more parts of the oceans are being fished (BBC).

California strengthens auto emission rules (LA Times). Meanwhile, more retailers are installing electric vehicle charging stations.

BP will have to cover many of the spill claims made against the rig’s owner (Washington Post).

The word “fracking” is ungood, says the energy industry (Washington Post).

The UK releases a comprehensive climate change assessment (BBC).

The search for a nuclear waste storage site continues (NY Times).

The search for a UN climate accord shows signs of life (NY Times).

The guitar industry is splintered over a wood protection law (LA Times). Meanwhile, the administration finalizes new rules for national forests (Washington Post).

An electric car battery maker goes under, despite Obama administration backing (Washington Post).

The tropics may be reaching “peak timber” (BBC).

Just one mention of climate change during President Obama’s state of the union speech this week? Well, I suppose that’s one more than last year from a president who was elected with a promise to change our country’s stance on climate change.

There is no such audacity leading up to this year’s election and that was made clear during the speech. The president knows there is no chance of striking an agreement and he all but admitted defeat on the topic.

“The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change,” Obama said, according to prepared remarks. “But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven’t acted.”

Heck, some say the president does less than President Bush on the topic.

On average, Obama has mentioned the words environment, climate change and global warming only once in his state of the union speeches. Clinton had an average of six mentions, while the former oil man Bush –who famously used his 2006 speech to lament America’s addiction to oil– mentioned climate change and environment on average twice.

It’s clear where he personally stands on the topic – a stance he made sure to cement by denying the Keystone XL pipeline last week. But aside from using his executive powers to make such decrees or direct the EPA, he’s been unable to act in cooperation with Congress.

The EU will ban purchases of Iranian oil (BBC). Its impact is questionable (BBC).

Gen Y car buyers like hybrids with lots of technology (LA Times).

Heating oil prices are crippling the Northeast (NY Times).

Environmentalists say the UK’s nuclear power subsidies are unlawful (BBC).

ConEd begins a $2.6 billion smart grid (NY Times).

An investigation finds that the Chevy Volt is safe (Washington Post).

Space junk is a growing problem (LA Times).

The Keystone XL pipeline is dead for now (Washington Post). Still, totally stopping the pipeline is unlikely (LA Times), as the fight is sure to heat up (Washington Post, BBC).

A judge blocks Vermont from shutting down the Vermont Yankee plant (NY Times).

The proposed new fuel economy standards have drawn widespread support (NY Times).

Climate change skepticism enters classrooms (LA Times).

A team of researchers proposed more practical and immediate climate solutions (NY Times).

Save water – keep a pitcher of tap water in your refrigerator.