Year 2, Month 10, Day 3: Yogi?

More on the dire predictions for Yellowstone National Park, this time printed in the Idaho State Journal for September 27:

According to new climate projections conducted for the report, the average of many models is for Yellowstone National Park summers to get 9.7 degrees hotter by 2070-2099 with medium-high future emissions. With a scenario of lower emissions, the average projection is for summers to get 5.6 degrees hotter. This illustrates that the most extreme effects of climate change can be avoided by taking action to reduce emissions. In fact, even the lower-emissions scenario does not assume new policies to reduce heat-trapping pollutants, and with new policies it would be possible to hold future climate change to an even smaller degree.

The effects of a disrupted climate threaten not only Greater Yellowstone’s ecology but also a $700 million annual tourism economy dependent on the region’s unique resources, says the report, which also notes that surveys indicate visitation could be substantially impacted by warming temperatures.

“What we humans are doing to the climate isn’t just melting polar ice caps, it’s disrupting the places that are nearest and dearest to us,” said Stephen Saunders, RMCO president and lead author of the report. “Already, threads are being pulled out of the tapestries of Yellowstone and other special places, and they are losing some of their luster.”

Variations on the theme. Sent September 29:

There’s nowhere on Earth like Yellowstone. With its rare and unusual wildlife and complex ecosystems, America’s greatest park is now gravely endangered by the ravages of climate change; those unique forms of life are extremely vulnerable to a runaway greenhouse effect.

It’s not just a 9.7 degree rise in predicted temperature that’s so frightening. That single figure conceals complex and unpredictable phenomena: wider swings from hot to cold, more extreme precipitation, and a loss of the climatic stability that allowed a complex ecology like Yellowstone’s to evolve in the first place.

Meanwhile, politicians and pundits irresponsibly assert that climate change is a liberal plot, or a fabrication by an international cabal of scientists desperately seeking funding.

Ultimately, of course, it’s not just Yellowstone that’s endangered, but all environments with complex ecologies. The time for concerted action on the climate crisis is now; there is no longer any time to waste.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 9, Day 26: Stupid Is As Stupid Does

The Sept. 22 edition of the Cypress Times (TX) notes the idiotic readiness of conservative voters to reject climate change and evolution in one fell swoop:

WASHINGTON, D.C.—While nearly 7-in-10 (69%) Americans believe there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades, and nearly 6-in-10 (57%) Americans believe humans and other living things evolved over time, a new survey finds that approximately half of Americans who identify with the Tea Party reject both (50% reject global warming and 51% reject evolution).

The new PRRI/RNS Religion News Survey was conducted by Public Religion Research Institute, in partnership with the Religion News Service, amid back and forth among Republican presidential candidates on religion and science, especially the issues of climate change and evolution.

I guess I just felt like lecturing them a bit on how dumb they’re being. Note the Old-Testament metaphor in my final sentence. Sent Sept. 22:

That many Republican primary voters enthusiastically repudiate evolutionary theory and global climate change is a sad indicator of the state of education in America. These same voters are perfectly ready to endorse scientific results when they’re ideologically neutral — just ask any “tea-party” member to give up antibiotics, chest x-rays, air travel, telephones or the internal combustion engine and see how far you’ll get. It’s also acceptable when science is used to support conservative policy objectives, as in the application of the latest and most advanced war-making technology — all developed by researchers applying the scientific method.

This method — the testing of falsifiable hypotheses — has created an understanding of the world overwhelmingly more accurate than any other in human history. To reject scientific results when they’re ideologically inconvenient — as in the case of climate denialists — is to bow before the golden calf of willful ignorance.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 9, Day 25: Blind Pigs And All That

Usually I have almost nothing but contempt for the World Bank, the IMF and the other tentacles of the global vampire squid. But as the September 21st issue of the Washington Post tells us, they’ve got something right:

AMSTERDAM — Global financial institutions are recommending raising money to fight climate change by trimming subsidies for fossil fuels, putting a price tag of $25 per ton on carbon emissions and collecting a surcharge on aviation and shipping fuels.

The recommendations are part of a draft paper by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other international groups prepared for a meeting Friday in Washington of G20 finance and development ministers. It was leaked prematurely and distributed Wednesday by aid agencies.

The ministers of the world’s 20 largest economies are responding to a commitment to channel $100 billion a year by 2020 to help developing countries adapt to global warming and develop low-carbon economies.

But Republicans won’t eat acorns, no matter what. Sent Sept. 21:

If the recommendations from the World Bank and the IMF actually gain traction in the policy-making sectors of government, it would mark a sea-change in political approaches to the climate crisis. Their suggestions err only on in being too conservative; fossil fuel prices should reflect the true cost of these commodities, including not only the long-term mitigation of their health and environmental effects but all those expensive wars we fight to protect our sources. When these factors are taken into account it is evident that burning carbon is an exceptionally costly to fuel a civilization.

A price on carbon likewise cries out for implementation. A “fee-and-dividend” scheme would return monies directly to consumers, partially offsetting increased energy costs.

Alas, Washington is unlikely to respond meaningfully to these recommendations. As Mr. Clinton remarked, GOP-induced policy paralysis and reflexive climate denialism makes America a joke in the eyes of the world.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 9, Day 24: The Punch Line Is A Punch In The Face

The Seattle Times runs an AP story on Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative, which handles the Big Dog’s remarks rather tamely:

Former President Bill Clinton’s annual philanthropic conference will get under way in New York City with a discussion about climate change.

The Clinton Global Initiative is set to begin Tuesday morning with an opening session focused on addressing global climate challenges in coming years. The session will be co-hosted by Mexican President Felipe Calderon and South African President Jacob Zuma.

They left out his characterization of GOP climate denialism as making the US into a “joke” in the eyes of the world:

Former President Bill Clinton has some tough words for Republican climate-change deniers: quit making the U.S. “look like a joke.”

Kicking off his Clinton Global Initiative in New York, the former president said Americans should make it “politically unacceptable” for people to engage in climate change denial, according to Politico.

“I mean, it makes us — we look like a joke, right?” Clinton said. “You can’t win the nomination of one of the major parties in the country if you admit that scientists are right?”

Link

So I mentioned it in my letter, sent September 20:

In his opening remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative, Bill Clinton spoke forcefully about Republicans’ rejection of science, saying that their unwillingness to admit the existence of global climate change makes the U.S.A. “look like a joke” to the rest of the world.

Indeed. When a huge slice of our country’s population is represented by petroleum-funded, science-denying, reality-phobic politicians who value the petty exigencies of political gamesmanship over meaningful policy responses to genuine emergencies — well, it means trouble any way you look at it.

It’s trouble for our country, as much-needed investments in renewable energy and conservation are blocked by GOP legislators. It’s trouble for the planet, as America continues to emit more CO2 per capita than any other country in the world. With Republican obstructionism blocking our response to the climate crisis, our country may look like a joke — but no one’s laughing anymore.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 9, Day 16: There Is No Gravity — The Earth Sucks

The September 10 Christian Science Monitor notes the unsurprising but extremely scary decline in the Arctic ice cap:

While tropical cyclones, as well as record droughts, floods, and wildfires have kept several of the lower 48 states occupied this year, the Arctic appears to be elbowing its way on to 2011’s list of extremes.

On Thursday, the extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean fell to its lowest level for any Sept. 8 since satellites first began to monitor conditions there in 1979, according to researchers at the University of Bremen’s Institute of Environmental Physics.

Coming so close to the end of the melt season, the observation holds out the prospect that 2011 could replace 2007 as the toughest year for sea-ice survival at the top of the world.

I used it as a hook on which to hang a bashing of Republican idiocy. Sent September 12:

As Arctic ice dwindles ever more rapidly, the prospect of a climate-change denialist occupying the White House is unsettling at best and terrifying at worst. One wonders: what would convince Republicans that global warming is real, human-caused, and dangerous?

Apparently nothing will do the trick — not even unequivocal statements from Army intelligence or the CIA that climate change will be an exceptional security threat in the coming decades. Apparently, any expert opinions running counter to GOP shibboleths are immediately and contemptuously dismissed, no matter how authoritative their sources.

The ice cap’s precipitous decline is a grim omen for our planet’s future — and pretending it’s not happening is fatal foolishness. If our democracy is to successfully address the most severe threat our species has ever faced, Republicans must come to their senses and recognize the grim and frightening reality that climatologists in the Arctic measure, each and every day.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 9, Day 15: I’m Talking About YOU, Rush.

The September 11 issue of The Tennesseean runs a plug for Al Gore’s Climate Reality project:

Former Vice President Al Gore of Nashville leads a worldwide, live-streamed, climate change-focused event called “24 Hours of Reality” that begins Wednesday at 7 p.m., Central time, and ends with the last hour presentation at 7 p.m. Thursday, Eastern time. The first will be from Mexico City and in Spanish, followed by hour-long presentations — one after another — in different areas of the globe, moving west. Several are in English, as will be the final one in New York City. Broadcast by Ustream, it can be viewed at climaterealityproject.org.

It’s good to write something in support, rather than in opposition. Sent Sept. 11:

Al Gore’s clarity of purpose is one of America’s most important assets. The former VP’s upcoming “Climate Reality” campaign deserves our respect and attention. Unfortunately, the denialist contingent has chosen to reject sound scientific conclusions for a variety of specious reasons, most of which boil down to, “because we don’t want to believe it.”

Well, the evidence has been in for a long time. Despite a series of contrived and debunked non-scandals, the scientific consensus on global climate change is overwhelming: humans cause it, it’s happening right now, it will affect our lives very significantly, and we — all of us — need to take action rapidly if we are to avoid catastrophe. Mr. Gore’s prescience is all the more important for this reason — he’s been warning us about this for well over a decade, despite the mockery of the uninformed, the professionally ignorant, and the selfishly greedy.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 9, Day 10: How’s That Pray-For-Rain Thing Working Out?

Anne MacQuarie has an excellent op-ed in the September 7 issue of the Carson City-based Nevada Appeal. It’s great:

…it’s been interesting to watch the Republican presidential candidates refine — if I can use that word for so blundering a process — their views on climate change.

Current wisdom — backed by some polls — is that the Republican base thinks human-caused climate change is a bunch of hooey and that we can’t do anything about it anyway. Candidates are falling all over themselves to, instead of lead, agree. Here’s a rundown of some of the candidates’ views, including current frontrunners Perry and Bachman.

Rick Perry believes “the issue of global warming has been politicized” and “scientists have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling in to their projects.”

Regarding doing anything at all to alleviate or halt climate change, Perry says he doesn’t want America “to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question.”

It’s a fine thing to be able to slap Rick Perry around a bit. He must never be allowed anywhere near national governance. Think Bush was a disaster? Perry will make us nostalgic for Dubya. Sent Sept. 7:

When Republican politicians discuss climate change, the projection is thick on the ground. Rick Perry’s assertion that scientists have manipulated data for financial gain offers a window into the mindset of people who’ve specialized in greed-driven data-manipulation for years. These are the same folks who cherry-picked intelligence to sell the American public an unnecessary (albeit profitable) war, remember? That they ascribe the same motives to others should be no surprise.

Scientific method is the best tool we have yet found for arriving at verifiable truth in reporting and analysis. While there are unethical scientists who are driven by pecuniary motives, they are a decided minority; most researchers are propelled by intellectual curiosity — a state of mind completely foreign to the GOP mindset.

Let’s agree, however, that there are some climate scientists who are decidedly guilty of data manipulation for personal gain. They’re on big oil’s payroll.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 9, Day 9: The Rent Is High But It’s Not So Bad If You Don’t Pay It

The Sept. 5 Daytona News-Journal has a piece of predictable, mealy-mouthed, pipeline advocacy:

According to the Houston Chronicle, the pipeline builders have agreed to 57 provisions beyond federal environmental law that will enhance environmental protections. The Chronicle reports the extra provisions include dropping the pipeline to greater depth at river crossings and in the Ogallala Aquifer region.

Piping the oil is safer than deep-water drilling, as the spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 proves. Drilling on land and in shallow water allows for quicker resolution of spills and pipeline problems.

In Alaska, the 800-mile Trans Alaska Pipeline System has had minimal problems, transferring 16 billion barrels of oil since 1977.

Canada is already our No. 1 source of foreign oil, and our northern neighbor is booming with new finds of oil. If the U.S. turns away the 700,000 barrels a day from the tar sands, the oil is likely to be sold to China — and that won’t help the price of gasoline here.

It sounds really plausible for a moment or so. Then you remember they’re speaking on behalf of some of the world’s most notorious liars and criminals. Sent September 5:

Careful scrutiny of the claims made by advocates of the Keystone XL pipeline is revealing. For example, saying that “the project would decrease American reliance on Middle-Eastern oil” doesn’t make it so — according to a recent study from Oil Change International, the tar sands oil is destined almost entirely for overseas markets. Without stringent enforcement mechanisms, the pipeline builders’ “57 provisions beyond federal environmental law that will enhance environmental protections” is a meaningless cosmetic gesture. The oil industry’s history is chock-full of legal malfeasance, bad intentions and simple incompetence — why would any sane person trust their bland assertions that the pipeline will be completely safe? And then there is the statement, offered without qualification, that “America needs the oil.” Yeah, we need that oil — and an addictive smoker needs that cigarette. But what America (and the rest of the world) really needs is to kick the habit entirely.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 9, Day 5: No Problem. We’ll Do It Fast And Cheap. Just Sign Here, and We’ll Be Back At The End Of Next Week. Don’t Drive On It Until Then.

The Sept. 1 Great Falls Tribune (MT) notes that:

HELENA — A new report from a Washington, D.C., oil policy advocacy group claims that much of the oil that would be pumped through the planned Keystone XL pipeline that would pass through Montana would be bound for overseas markets rather than shoring up America’s domestic fuel supply.

(snip)

TransCanada disputes those claims, dismissing the report as “the latest concoction by activists who are trying to stop the oil stands.”

Well, they would, wouldn’t they?

Honestly, this whole project is the most obvious scam I’ve ever seen. These people remind me of fly-by-night driveway repair guys.

Sent Sept. 1:

And now there’s yet another reason to oppose the Keystone XL project. If the Canadian crude is meant for foreign sale, as the Oil Change International report states, then the only Americans likely to benefit are oil company executives and refinery operators. TransCanada’s vehement denials are hardly persuasive; the whole fossil fuel industry has a long and ugly record of mendacity, malfeasance and misrepresentation.

Extracting oil from Alberta’s tar sands is a hideously destructive process involving the destruction of huge swaths of boreal forest; the potential impact on the Earth’s climate is devastating (climatologist James Hansen simply says that the project would be “game over” for the climate). Factor in the likelihood of spills, leaks, and aquifer contamination as the crude is piped to refineries thousands of miles away, and it’s obvious: the Keystone pipeline is a recipe for short-, middle- and long-term disaster. President Obama should say no.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 9, Day 3: If wishes were horses, there would be lots of wish-poop on the street.

The August 30 Kansas City Star reprints a column from the LA Times by Eugene Linden, called “Betting The Farm Against Climate Change.” Good stuff:

Leon Trotsky is reputed to have quipped, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” Substitute the words “climate change” for “war” and the quote is perfectly suited for the governors of Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico, all of whom have ridiculed or dismissed the threat of climate change even as their states suffer record-breaking heat and drought.

In his book, “Fed Up!” Texas governor and presidential aspirant Rick Perry derided global warming as a “phony mess,” a sentiment he has expanded on in recent campaign appearances. Susana Martinez, the governor of New Mexico, has gone on record as doubting that humans influence climate, and Mary Fallin of Oklahoma dismissed research on climate change as a waste of time. Her solution to the extraordinary drought: pray for rain (an approach also endorsed by Perry).

Heh heh heh. Sent August 30:

The exigencies of Republican electoral politics have been biased toward the surreal for decades, but the current season is by far the most bizarre. Even at their most anti-intellectual moments, GOP aspirants have always offered some form of glib lip-service to American scientific achievement and technological progress. No more; the new standard is a vehement rejection of anything that requires logic, analysis or the interpretation of facts. The irrelevance of actual data to conservative philosophies of governance is unsettling; traditionally, politics is called “the art of the possible” — surely a reality-based way of putting it.

While these politicians don’t believe humans are influencing the earth’s climate, they’re absolutely certain that the inconvenient reality of catastrophic global warming will vanish if we deny it strongly enough. If refusing to accept facts actually makes them go away, perhaps we should all deny the existence of Republican politicians.

Yeah. That oughta work.

Warren Senders