The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency responsible for tracking climate patterns, said yesterday that high ocean temperatures in 2005 led to the worst coral reef damage in the Caribbean on record. The high ocean temperatures resulted in the bleaching of some 80 percent of the coral reef surveyed in the Caribbean and tropical Atlantic. When coral is bleached, essential algae that grow on the coral are expelled. About 40 percent of the coral reef died, according to the new study, which is the most comprehensive on the issue.

NOAA scientists say the bleaching and coral death will have a severe effect on the ocean ecosystem. They also say that the problem is likely to get worse as ocean temperatures rise as a result of climate change.

“Heat stress during the 2005 event exceeded any observed in the Caribbean in the prior 20 years, and regionally-averaged temperatures were the warmest in at least 150 years,” said Mark Eakin, coordinator of NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch Program, in a statement. “This severe, widespread bleaching and mortality will undoubtedly have long-term consequences for reef ecosystems, and events like this are likely to become more common as the climate warms.”

Environmentalists are using this study and other research to call for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As the new crop of Republicans entering Congress raise questions about climate science, environmentalists are redoubling their efforts to educate the public on the issue, even as prospects for climate legislation in the Senate and a binding global climate treaty appear unlikely.

In a call sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists last week, Brenda Ekwurze, a climate scientist at the group, pointed to the NOAA data to underscore that “the science remains unequivocal.”

Eakin, who also spoke on the call, said, “Right now, coral reefs around the world are either bleached, dead from bleaching or trying to recover from bleaching.” Eakin added that scientists are seeing wide-scale bleaching in 2010 as well. Early data suggests the bleaching isn’t as severe as in the 1990s, when about 50 percent of the world’s coral reefs were destroyed. But Eakin said, “How bad does it have to be? Is one atomic blast worse than another?”

Another issue UCS is focusing on to build a case for action on climate change is forest fires. New research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions will result in never-before-seen instances of global forest fires.

Olga Pechony, a research scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies who conducted the research and spoke on the call last week, said, “If we take care of the base cause of this increase, global warming, this would be something that would help. Reducing the levels of warming would reduce the levels of fire activity.”

The Blue Green Alliance — which includes among its membership the United Steelworkers, the United Autoworkers and the Union of Concerned Scientists — said passage of an RES is an essential step in creating new jobs and encouraging the development of clean energy technology. The group also called for passage of a number of other energy-related provisions during the lame duck including legislation to better protect mine and oil rig workers, provide incentives for home and building efficiency and expand energy manufacturing tax credits.

But prospects for passage of energy-related legislation during the lame-duck session are slim, as I reported today in our lame duck preview. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) talked last week about moving a renewable energy standard during the lame-duck session. But according to a senior Senate aide with knowledge of the conversation, it appears that Reid decided there isn’t enough support to do so.

Still, United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard said the alliance will push for passage of an RES and other energy provisions in the lame duck despite the potential uphill climb. “I don’t intend, as the leader of the steelworkers union, to take the path of least resistance,” he said on a call with reporters today. “I intend to take the path of the most jobs.”

And, in an apparent reference to Rep. John Shimkus’ (R-Ill.) comments about the Bible and climate change, Gerard added:

I don’t believe God’s going to step in and save global warming. I think we’ve got to step in and do something about it.

Update: Here’s a copy of the Blue Green Alliance’s seven “best job-creating policies” to pass in the lame-duck session.

In an interview today, Marchant Wentworth, legislative representative at the Union of Concerned Scientists, echoed much of what I wrote.

“A lot of us are looking at the lame duck and we would see this as one of our last big chances to move a lot of this stuff,” Wentworth says. He adds that Republican gains in the Senate or House could reduce the chances of Republicans cooperating on legislation even in the lame duck. “If the Republicans take over the house, some folks believe that that would reduce any sort of impetus to deal in anything,” Wentworth says.

Wentworth says the only things that have a chance to come up for a vote in the lame duck are bills that can get 60 votes. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), he said, does not want to try to pass controversial bills in November. “The general answer we get from Bingaman and others is that they will proceed on things that appear to have the greatest amount of support,” Wentworth says. “If you can demonstrate 60 votes, it increases the likelihood of it happening.”

The renewable energy standard proposal introduced by Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) has enough support to pass, Wentworth argues. The bill currently has 33 co-sponsors, including four Republicans. Wentworth says he is in discussion with other lawmakers to support the bill. “As it looks now, it looks that there’s enough interested to get past 60,” he says.

Wentworth also downplays the impact of a “clean energy standard” proposal being circulated by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The bill would allow nuclear and coal with carbon capture and storage technology to count toward the standard. “I don’t think it’s going to pull support away,” Wentworth says. “Some of the people looking at Graham are people that wouldn’t necessarily be a ‘yes’ vote on an RES.”

Wentworth took some comfort in President Obama’s announcement that he will push for comprehensive energy legislation in 2011. He notes that passing energy bills in “chunks,” as Obama said, is probably the best way to make progress. But Wentworth says there’s little chance a cap-and-trade bill can pass next year. “I don’t think so,” he says when asked about it. “That’s our sense right now.”

But, this week, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) put the kibosh on moving the bipartisan food safety bill forward.

Why? The deficit. The bill costs $1.4 billion over five years — about $280 million a year, out of the $3.8 trillion annual federal budget. Aides say the bill actually does not break Congress’ self-set paygo rules, as Politico explains: “[T]he overall package [is] compliant…and deficit neutral because it authorizes appropriations, as opposed to setting them.” Still, Coburn says he won’t let it pass until its total cost is zero.

The same day, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) unveiled the Tax Hike Prevention Act, which extends the Bush tax cuts and adds something like $4 trillion to the deficit. To offset that cost, Republicans point to $300 billion from a spending freeze. They would look to the deficit commission to name cuts to make up the remaining $3.7 trillion.

Again, though the Congressional Budget Office has not yet scored the Tax Hike Prevention Act, Republicans are getting behind legislation that would putatively raise the debt by $4 trillion. But a Republican is holding up legislation that probably meets Senate paygo rules and costs about $280 million a year.

The nonpartisan, nonprofit group issued a “report card” grading 15 federal agencies on their communication policies. Some agencies, it found,  “stifle communication” even if their policies encourage free speech. Other agencies simply have weak policies regarding communication with the media.

The Centers for Disease Control, for example, was found to have the best media policy, one that allows scientists to state personal views and review press releases about their own research. But the agency poorly implemented the policy.

According to the study released today, the agencies with the best communication policies, and which most effectively implemented them, were NASA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). The Union of Concerned Scientists has commended NASA for improving its media policy after a political appointee in the agency reportedly censored leading climate scientist James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The agencies with the worst policies include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service (within the Dept. of Interior), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

The report card is below. The full report can be found here (pdf).