Year 2, Month 7, Day 22: Ad Hoc Geoengineering

The Daily Mail (UK) runs an article on the Chinese sulfur emissions question:

China’s rapid industrial expansion may have halted global warming for much of the last decade, climate scientists claimed.

They said sulphur pollution from China’s coal-fired power stations helped to keep world temperatures stable despite soaring greenhouse gas emissions.

Burning coal releases carbon dioxide which traps heat from the Sun, raising temperatures. But it also emits particles of sulphur that help block the Sun’s rays and cool the Earth.

One of the attractions of the alternate-universes cosmology is the notion that somewhere there is a planet Earth where the humans haven’t fucked things up so completely.

Sent July 6:

The analysis suggesting that Chinese sulfur emissions have helped slow global heating trends is yet another confirmation of a simple fact: the science of climate change is complicated. Of course, that should be no surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention, but the idea that there are multiple inter-relating factors seems to be hard for climate-change deniers to grasp. Given that ending the West’s dependence on fossil fuels will have enormously beneficial economic and environmental impacts, the reluctance of the denialists in our politics and media to move forward on this crucial issue can only be attributed to their fear of change, whether positive or negative. It certainly couldn’t be because they’re financially beholden to multinational energy corporations that will lose a few percentage points of profit; even the most avaricious of politicians surely wouldn’t put short-term profit over the survival of our species or our civilization. Or would they?

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 7, Day 21: Yecchh.

US News and World Report’s Jessica Rettig notes on July 5 that when it comes to the planet’s climate, the American political climate is, um, not so good:

Still shunned as fringe ideologues, or worse, by Democrats and much of the formal scientific community, skeptics of global warming were nonetheless celebratory as they gathered in Washington last week for the conservative Heartland Institute’s annual climate change conference. And for good reason. Climate change legislation has been on the back burner since 2009 and an increasing number of Republican lawmakers now call themselves skeptics as well. Indeed, the tide of the debate—at least politically—has turned in their favor.

Political experts say that with the economy at the forefront of the nation’s focus, concerns over global warming won’t carry much weight in the 2012 election. At most, climate change will be just another place for candidates, especially those in the GOP, to distinguish themselves from their opponents, if they dare. “[Climate change is] part of an undercurrent. The race is going to be about the economy and the fiscal crisis. So to the degree that one or several of the candidates can work the story line that some of these concerns are having an impact on the economy, that will be a marginal help,” says pollster Scott Rasmussen. “But it’s not a central issue by any stretch of the imagination.”

Sociopaths is what they are. Sent July 5:

The politicizing of science has never been as egregious as it is today, with essentially the entire GOP rejecting expert evidence based on nothing more than a set of ideological preconceptions. Do the facts show a clear pattern of steadily increasing global temperatures? Impugn the scientists. Do the physical principles underpinning the greenhouse effect run counter to conservative shibboleths? Glorify ignorance. Is the worldwide scientific consensus on climate change essentially universal? A few oil-funded contrarians can give the impression that “the science isn’t settled.” Eventually, of course, the laws of physics and chemistry will decide, and unless we stop treating climate science as a political football, the verdict will not come down in humanity’s favor. The Republican party has long had a history of ignoring inconvenient facts, but when it comes to climate change, they have gleefully replaced a reality-based science policy with the ugliest sort of petulant, destructive, nihilism.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 7, Day 20: For Every Complex Problem, There’s A Simple Answer. And It’s Wrong.

The July 4 Albany Times-Union notes that since China burned a whole shitload of coal over the past decade, and it’s been really dirty coal, it’s emitted a lot of sulfur. Which has, apparently, slowed down our planetary rush to the rotisserie:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Scientists have come up with a possible explanation for why the rise in Earth’s temperature paused for a bit during the 2000s, one of the hottest decades on record.

The answer seems counterintuitive. It’s all that sulfur pollution in the air from China’s massive coal-burning, according to a new study.

Sulfur particles in the air deflect the sun’s rays and can temporarily cool things down a bit. That can happen even as coal-burning produces the carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming.

I’m not surprised by this. How about you? Sent July 4:

The phenomena of climate change frequently seem to defy common sense. The notion that a relatively small increase in carbon dioxide emission can trigger such disastrous effects, for example, is almost unbelievable. Similarly, since humans are notoriously poor at planning for the long term, the thought that what we do today will affect our descendants in the centuries to come is all but impossible to comprehend. The fact that Chinese sulfur emissions could slow down the planetary warming trend for a while is likewise counterintuitive, running contrary to the ingrained knowledge of the world which our species has honed over countless millennia. For thousands of years, our “common sense” has told us that the Earth was an unlimited and infinitely resilient resource, ripe for our exploitation. If we and our civilization are to survive in the long term, we must transform both our wasteful behavior and our incorrect, hubristic intuitions.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 7, Day 19: Meet The Old Boss, Same As The New Boss

A bland set of paragraphs in the Belfast Telegraph announcing the opening of the Berlin climate talks, on July 3:

Representatives from 35 countries have met in Germany to discuss how to overcome disputes over reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The informal two-day gathering in Berlin is designed to lay the groundwork for an international climate conference in Durban, South Africa, in November.

I used it as the hook for an anti-corporatist screed. Sent July 3:

One wonders what it will take to get the world to stop treating the extreme dangers of runaway climate change as the occasion for political posturing. For example, as the American presidential election approaches, one entire political party has commited itself to an anti-science, anti-reality posture on what is arguably the biggest threat humanity has ever faced. Similar political equations are found throughout the developed world. Perhaps we need to face another horrifying fact that has emerged over the past several decades: many of the world’s governments are essentially owned lock, stock and barrel by multinationals which aren’t going to relinquish any profit whatsoever. Persuading the world’s governments of the urgency of the climate crisis will mean little unless and until the planet’s largest corporations come to their senses and recognize that putting their customers (us) through what biologists euphemistically call an “evolutionary bottleneck” is an awfully stupid business plan.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 7, Day 19: A Thick Protective Coating

More hilarity on Jim Inhofe’s swimming adventure, this time from the Joplin, MO Globe. They used the same AP feed, so there’s nothing more to add but my letter, sent July 2:

The report on Grand Lake’s algal blooms omitted an important fact: according to an April 4 paper published in the journal Science, the conditions that give rise to the proliferation of the toxic scum are consequences of climate change. BGA loves unstable weather, record high heat, and excess atmospheric CO2 — all of which are results of global warming. This, of course, renders James Inhofe’s ill-fated swim more than a little ironic. The Senate’s top climate-change denier — a man who revels in his “enemy of the environment” status — finally experiences the impact of the greenhouse effect personally. But it will probably take more than exposure to poisonous algae to change Mr. Inhofe’s mind. He’s protected by another sort of green scum: the oil industry money financing his public campaigns against sensible action to deal with the looming climate crisis.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 7, Day 18: Look Before You Leap!

James Inhofe is still an idiot. Witness, for example, this AP article printed in the Greenfield Reporter (IN):

TULSA, Okla. — Sen. James Inhofe says he believes a swim earlier this week in algae-laden Grand Lake made him ill.

Inhofe told the Tulsa World that he took a routine dive into the lake Monday morning and that night he was “deathly sick.”

Oklahoma authorities warned people Friday against swimming in the lake, saying potentially toxic blue-green algae had been detected. They’ve also advised against water skiing and other activities that would bring people or pets in contact with the water.

The algae would undoubtedly do a better job as Senator. Sent July 2:

James Inhofe’s excellent adventure — diving into Oklahoma’s Grand Lake — wound up making him seriously ill. No wonder: the surface of the water was covered with a blue-green scum which the senator had never before seen, despite decades of living on the lake shore. It’s unsurprising that Mr. Inhofe didn’t look before leaping, since the senator has made a successful political career out of a public contempt for facts, prediction, and analysis. If he’d bothered to investigate the algae, he would have learned it was exceptionally poisonous — up to 18 times more toxic than the warning level used by the World Health Organization. If he uses his convalescence to do some more research, he might learn that according to an April 4 paper in the journal Science, the cyanobacteria that laid him low thrive and flourish in the weather extremes that are a consequence of (you guessed it!) global warming.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 7, Day 17: And In The Left Corner, In Yellow Trunks…

The L.A. Times reports on the recent (July 1) ruling that the Polar Bear is going to be allowed to keep its status on the Endangered Species list.

A U.S. District Court on Thursday upheld a Bush-era decision that polar bears are a threatened species, despite challenges by the state of Alaska and others seeking to strip the bear of its protection.

Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to protect the bear because of the melting of the Arctic sea ice was well supported and that opponents failed to demonstrate that the listing was irrational.

“Plaintiffs’ challenges amount to nothing more than competing views about policy and science,” Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote.

Them pesky liberal judges.

Personally, I’d like to watch a polar bear and James Inhofe battle it out.

Sent July 1:

As one of the most recognizable of the world’s charismatic megafauna, the polar bear’s become a symbol of wildlife endangered by climate change. While Judge Sullivan’s ruling on the threatened Arctic predator’s status is welcome news, we need to recognize that it’s not just the big, furry and picturesque that need our protection. All over the planet, creatures great and small are coming under attack from a faceless enemy — but the ultimate victims are not the animals and plants themselves, but the living networks of interdependency of which they are a part. The world’s ecosystems are in grave danger; as they lose their resilience, we’ll see ever-greater numbers of inarticulate climate refugees searching for new habitats. It’s unfortunate that there is no category for Endangered Environments, for it’s not just the polar bear, but its entire support system, that is under assault from the greenhouse effect and its consequences.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 7, Day 16: The Changer Things Get, The Samer They Are

The same AP article on the deepening crisis, this time from the June 29 Idaho Press-Tribune:

“The indicators show unequivocally that the world continues to warm,” Thomas R. Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, said in releasing the annual State of the Climate report for 2010.

“There is a clear and unmistakable signal from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans,” added Peter Thorne of the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, North Carolina State University.

Sent June 30:

While the Earth is certainly, as Dr. Peter Thorne puts it, “sending us a clear and unmistakable signal” about the looming climate catastrophe, the systemic dysfunctionality of our media and politics ensures that those who hear it are in no position to make a difference. When the fossil-fuel industry purchases the allegiance of our legislators and multinational corporations control our news, the end result is political paralysis — something that human civilization can no longer afford. The situational deafness of political opportunists is no longer just an example of institutionalized corruption, but a genuine and pressing danger. That “clear and unmistakable signal” is telling us: the time available to mitigate the disastrous consequences of climate change is rapidly running out. A philosopher might ask: if a window of opportunity slams, but no one hears it, does it make a sound?

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 7, Day 15: No News Is Good News

Lots of newspapers are running something about this June 29 report from the National Climate Data Center. Among them is the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel:

WASHINGTON — The world’s climate is not only continuing to warm, it’s adding heat-trapping greenhouse gases faster than in the past, researchers said Tuesday. The global temperature has been warmer than the 20th-century average every month for more than 25 years, they said at a teleconference.

“The indicators show unequivocally that the world continues to warm,” Thomas R. Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, said in releasing the annual State of the Climate report for 2010.

The evidence keeps accumulating, and by now it’s way deeper than an anomalous blizzard in Washington, DC. But that won’t stop the climate-change denialists in media and politics. By now their positions are fixed in stone; it would be easier to get all that extra atmospheric CO2 back in the ground than to get the GOP’s anti-science zealots to admit error. During the Bush administration, an un-named official derided the “reality-based community,” saying, “We’re an empire. We make our own reality.” And the current Republican party still clings stubbornly to the notion that inconvenient facts can be ignored, forever if necessary. As the NCDC report shows, pretty soon those facts will be too hot to handle. Eventually, of course, climate denialists will admit the reality of climate change — but America and the world cannot afford to wait any longer. It’s time for them to wake up; the coffee’s burning.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 7, Day 14: Sustainable Exploitation Is The Way To Go!

The June 28 Times-Record (ME) has a good editorial, titled “What About High Cost Of Unhealthy Air?”

Yeah? What about it?

Actually, it isn’t “we, the people” who get stuck on the cost of keeping our air clean and healthy. Polls consistently show strong public support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to impose and enforce strict limits on air pollution. A new nationwide bipartisan survey, released on June 16 by the American Lung Association, includes these findings:

— 75 percent of voters support EPA setting stricter limits on smog.

— 65 percent said stricter limits on air pollution will not damage our economic recovery; in fact, 54 percent believe upgraded standards will create more, not fewer, jobs.

— 66 percent said the EPA should set pollution standards, not Congress.

And not only that, but:

In the House, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, successfully pushed through H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, in a 255-172 vote. Opponents renamed it the “Dirty Air Act,” which seems fair enough considering the bill would:

— Block EPA from cutting carbon dioxide and other pollutants from coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and other industries. Opponents rightly point out that coal-fired plants are the largest single-source of global warming pollution in the U.S.

— Override the determination by EPA scientists that global warming pollution poses threats to public health and welfare. Opponents rightly challenge the notion that members of Congress are better informed about climate science than the EPA’s climate scientists.

— Block both the EPA and states from issuing new standards for cleaner vehicles after 2017. Opponents point out that these standards, as well as the 2012-2016 standards, help reduce our reliance on foreign oil and save motorists money at the gas pump.

In the Senate, Upton’s bill fell 10 votes shy of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster, but many of its provisions turned up in four amendments to an unrelated small business bill (S.493).

It’s a good piece, and triggered these rather testy words, sent June 28:

The ongoing struggle against environmental regulation by giant corporations and their captive politicians is positively surreal in its disregard for the best interests of America and the world. Representative Upton’s attempt to hobble the EPA is based on specious rationalizations, poor science, and a mindset that exalts maximum immediate return on investment and nothing else. But a healthy environment cannot be exploited endlessly; Earth is large, but finite, and the waste products of our industrialized culture have begun to overwhelm the planet’s handling capacity. “The Environment” is not a fictional construct respected only by hippies and scientists; it’s where all of us live. All of us, that is, except multinational corporations, which explains why they find environmental regulations so annoying. It’s not their air that’s unbreathable, or their water that’s increasingly befouled; it’s ours. And other than as a source of short-term profits, what use have they for us?

Warren Senders