Year 3, Month 5, Day 14: Got Two Reasons Why I Cry

The Decorah Newspapers of Winnishek County, Iowa run a bit of advocacy for the 350.org “connect the dots” action. Good for them:

Across the planet now we see ever more flood, ever more drought, ever more storms. People are dying, communities are being wrecked – the impacts we’re already witnessing from climate change are unlike anything we have seen before.

Every time we pick up the newspaper and read about another record-breaking natural disaster, it becomes increasingly clear that climate change is not a future problem – it’s happening right now.

But because the globe is so big, it’s hard for most people to see that it’s all connected. That’s why, Saturday May 5, we will “Connect the Dots” starting at the Decorah Court House.

A revision of the letter for yesterday, which was also sent May 4 (putting me 10 days ahead):

Robust and enduring responses to the burgeoning greenhouse effect must begin with understanding and awareness — without the long-term perspective that allows us to imagine centuries in the future, climate strategies are doomed to fall off our collective radar screens.

Combating climate change doesn’t require a “new Manhattan project” or a “new Apollo program,” although climatology will surely be one of the most important scientific fields of this millennium. While the atomic bomb was an absolute secret until it fell on Hiroshima, successful climate technologies must be transparent and accessible to all. While there was little ordinary citizens could do for the race to the moon (beyond sending pennies to NASA), preparation for global warming’s consequences has to happen in our daily lives, not just in the top echelons of government.

But it all starts with connecting the dots between extreme weather and global climate change. Let’s get to work.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 5, Day 13: Ain’t No Place A Man Can Hide

The Barnstable Patriot discusses the ways climate change is affecting Cape Cod, Massachusetts’ own vacation paradise:

Climate change is costing Cape Codders. It is eating at our shorelines, causing storm surges to overrun our beaches and houses. It is raising the price of our homeowner’s insurance. Our vulnerable sandy habitation, 10 miles wide, is part of a global system of weather that affects us locally, according to four experts who spoke at a climate change forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters at the Harwich Community Center April 28.

The takeaway message is that while belief in climate change is falling, the reality of it is increasing via accumulated science from real events, according to Dr. Eric Davidson, executive director of the Woods Hole Research Center, which looks at climate science from the Amazon to the Arctic. Davidson warned that hard facts prove the dangers of rising global warming. He said that since the world focused its attention on this issue at Rio de Janeiro in 1992, emissions have been lowered in some nations, but by and large, little has been accomplished.

Unless we mitigate, adapt and change now, Davidson said, there will be increased suffering from heat, violent weather extremes, famine, drought and flooding, all of which, data collected, measured and sifted over time show, will increase exponentially. He added that actuarial information from insurance companies supports the data.

Describing global warming as the “parked car effect,” Davidson said that heat from the sun comes through the window, but in re-radiating back out it becomes trapped, heating up the car. The earth’s atmosphere is the same, trapping rising methane, carbon dioxide and other gases from fossil fuel use in a big puffy blanket of molecules that prevent the heat from getting back through the “car window.” Since Scripps Institute of Oceanography in California, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and others have been keeping records, from 1960 to now carbon dioxide has increased from 320 parts per million to 380 parts per million. (The Arab oil embargo of 1973 diminished greenhouse gas emissions briefly by lowering usage.) Davidson says that La Nina and a sun spot cycle actually are cooling the planet somewhat now, but when the solar cycle changes and we enter El Nino, warming will accelerate. Best scenario, the Cape will have a mid-Atlantic-states climate in the future; worst, a climate like South Carolina’s.

This is a generic letter, but one that makes a useful point. I’m going to do a few more on this theme today (May 4) if I get the time.

We often hear that combating climate change will require a “new Manhattan project” or a “new Apollo program.” But both of these analogies are inexact. America’s development of the atomic bomb was kept under wraps until the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — but successful climate technologies must be transparent and accessible to all. While the race to the moon was no secret, there was little ordinary citizens could do beyond sending pennies to NASA — but preparation for global warming’s consequences has to happen in our daily lives, not just in the top echelons of government.

Mounting a robust and enduring response to the burgeoning greenhouse effect is not in itself a goal, like making an explosion or returning safely from the moon. Rather, it is an essential transformation in the way we collectively understand our responsibilities to the environment and to our posterity. If we are to survive and prosper in the coming centuries, our species and our civilization must change our focus to the long term. And, perhaps paradoxically, we’ve got no time to waste.

Warren Senders

10 May 2012, 12:12pm
atheism Education Politics:
by

1 comment

  • Meta

  • SiteMeter

  • Brighter Planet

    Brighter Planet's 350 Challenge
  • I’d Like Tautology Dressing On My Word Salad, Please.

    In response to a facebook meme that said, “Study one religion and you’re hooked for life. Study two religions and you’re done in an hour” an old colleague who’s gone Xtian posted the following:

    Religion that is focused on and filled with spirituality, like life itself, does not and need not make sense in the human mind as it seeks to address the deep desires and highest aspirations in people who perceive themselves to have a soul. The human institutions of religion are imperfect expressions of human superconsciousness, and to the extent that any repetitive mental effort seeking to understand realities beyond its intended purpose mostly serves to confound intelligibility, I agree that studying multiple imperfect expressions of superconscious truisms must by definition produce an irrational and pointless result.

    Does this mean anything?

    Year 3, Month 5, Day 10: All I Gotta Do Is…Act Naturally

    Sigh. Another day, another moderate conservative who just can’t understand why his party is so darned unreasonable nowadays. The Iowa City Press-Citizen hosts the remarks of Mr. Bill Ferrel, who haz a sad:

    As a conservative Republican who very much understands the need to reduce and control our spending, it may seem strange that I understand and accept that climate change is impacting my home, state and country.

    It is beyond comprehension that my party would so adamantly avoid dealing with the fact that we now are facing historical events on such a regular basis that it is impacting our state and national budgets in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

    Why do we continue to miss the chance to address proactively the adverse impacts of our past and current actions? Why is it that we have not connected the dots between climate change and real life events that have occurred in our own backyards? Why do we find it acceptable to have massive damage to our university, and yet sit by and be satisfied with the hundreds of millions of dollars that are being spent locally to repair the damage?

    Another day, another chance to educate the increasingly rare moderate Republican on why his party is full of idiots. Sent May 1:

    Bill Ferrel can’t understand why his party “would so adamantly avoid dealing with the fact” of global climate change. He’s not alone in finding the antics of the current Republican party incomprehensible, but one wonders why it’s taken him so long. While the GOP’s fraught relationship with inconvenient expertise dates back to the Truman administration, when “old China hands” were expelled from the State Department by Joe McCarthy’s henchmen on charges of communist sympathies, the party of Lincoln really left its moorings with the administration of Ronald Reagan, whose anecdotal governance left facts gasping for breath in choking clouds of fairy dust.

    Mr. Ferrel wants his fellow conservatives to “ask the questions and seek reasonable solutions.” But their decades of anti-intellectual posturing and ideological inflexibility have made Republicans both incurious and unreasonable — and created an overheated political environment with likely consequences almost as damaging as the burgeoning greenhouse effect.

    Warren Senders

    Year 3, Month 5, Day 9: Please Don’t Wake Me, I’m Only Sleeping

    The Fort-Wayne Journal Gazette runs the same WaPo editorial that has surfaced here before:

    In his interview, the president expressed frustration that “internationally, we have not made as much progress as we need to make.” Surely, though, the inattention from leaders such as Obama has contributed to the slow progress at home, which is a major reason for the slow progress abroad. As a 2007 Foreign Affairs article explained, strong U.S. action is critical to international efforts to defeat this “epochal, man-made threat to the planet”:

    “As the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases, America has the responsibility to lead. While many of our industrial partners are working hard to reduce their emissions, we are increasing ours at a steady clip. … We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia.”

    The writer was Sen. Barack Obama.

    So I figured, since it’s in the Christian heartland and all, perhaps the paper wouldn’t mind a little eschatology. Sent April 30:

    Anyone who’s paying attention knows that fossil fuel interests use their massive financial resources to co-opt media voices and redirect the energies of legislators away from policies that would hurt their profitability. But when it comes to the issue of climate change, President Obama’s dilemma is complicated by a factor that is rarely if ever discussed in polite company: religion. The uneasy alliance of corporate and theocratic conservatives has brought about a situation where a significant percentage of Americans and their representatives in Congress are actively and eagerly anticipating Apocalypse, finding a Biblical rationale for inaction in the face of a rapidly mounting crisis. While religion may provide solace for many, it should not become the vehicle for an irresponsible failure to plan for possible disaster.

    “Wait for the Second Coming” is not a valid environmental policy. If we are to achieve sustainability in America, we must repudiate the Rapture.

    Warren Senders

    Year 3, Month 5, Day 7: Joyous Free And Flaming Youth Was Mine…

    The Toledo Blade speaks sooth in a guest editorial titled “Serious On Climate Change”:

    In an interview that Rolling Stone magazine published this week, President Obama said he thinks climate change will be a big issue in the coming election and that he will be “very clear” about his “belief that we’re going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way.” That would be a welcome switch.

    Dealing forthrightly with the world’s rising temperatures has been far down the list of priorities in Washington. The President has shown little willingness to stick his political neck out on the issue.

    Mr. Obama’s attempts to revive the Democrats’ cap-and-trade plan during the 2010 election season quickly led to nothing. White House rollouts on energy policy have focused mostly on energy independence or green jobs but not on the global threat of warming.

    Republicans deserve blame for stifling fair discussion of the issue. And Mr. Obama can cite some achievements: He pushed through landmark fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. He invested in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency through the stimulus. The Environmental Protection Agency has worked on greenhouse-gas rules.

    But these won’t adequately attack the big problem: how Americans produce and consume energy, particularly electricity. That requires a robust, economy-wide solution, such as a carbon tax or a simple cap-and-trade program.

    A generic “we better do something soon!” letter…not much time today, as I was dealing with a sudden influx of lumber from an unexpected source. Sent April 28:

    Hamstrung as he is by obstructionist Republicans and a national media determined to downplay the urgency of the crisis, it’s remarkable that President Obama’s been able to do anything about climate change at all. He surely deserves credit for a re-energized EPA, more stringent fuel efficiency standards, and multiple other initiatives that have largely gone unnoticed in the hysteria attendant on the 24-hour news cycle and an impending presidential election.

    But the laws of physics and chemistry don’t care about the daily polls, and despite the denialist rhetoric of conservatives who only accept scientific findings that support their ideological biases, the greenhouse effect is real. Mr. Obama’s readiness to speak out on this issue during the upcoming campaign is very welcome — but global warming isn’t subject to a majority vote. If our leaders cannot address the crisis, we’ll all be the losers regardless of the outcome this November.

    Warren Senders

    Year 3, Month 5, Day 6: Here’s Your Allowance For The Next Decade, Sweetheart. It’s All In Pennies.

    The New York Times reports on a scary new study:

    New research suggests that global warming is causing the cycle of evaporation and rainfall over the oceans to intensify more than scientists had expected, an ominous finding that may indicate a higher potential for extreme weather in coming decades.

    By measuring changes in salinity on the ocean’s surface, the researchers inferred that the water cycle had accelerated by about 4 percent over the last half century. That does not sound particularly large, but it is twice the figure generated from computerized analyses of the climate.

    If the estimate holds up, it implies that the water cycle could quicken by as much as 20 percent later in this century as the planet warms, potentially leading to more droughts and floods.

    That’s pretty fucking alarming. Sent April 27:

    A projected twenty percent acceleration in Earth’s water cycle holds the potential for catastrophic ripple effects throughout our lives and those of our posterity. Without a steady supply of water throughout the growing season, agriculture on civilization-feeding scales will become exponentially more difficult. While its impacts on farming will be profound, the drought-or-deluge model predicted by Paul Durack and his colleagues can be expected to transform beyond recognition many of the local and regional ecosystems our forbears took for granted.

    To avoid the worst-case scenarios implicit in these findings, we must begin planning for a future in which water supplies will be irregular and extreme. We’ll need expanded and reinforced storage and conservation, water-stingy techniques of manufacturing, a completely re-imagined waste-processing system, and the infrastructure required by a host of other functions. Most difficult of all, we need to make our paralyzed political system respond constructively to an imminent crisis.

    Warren Senders

    Year 3, Month 5, Day 5: What’s Wrong With This Picture?

    The Chicago Tribune carries the “people are waking up” story a few steps further:

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Three out of four U.S. voters favor regulating carbon dioxide as a greenhouse-gas pollutant, and a majority think global warming should be a priority for the president and Congress, a survey of American attitudes on climate and energy reported on Thursday.

    The survey was released one day after Rolling Stone magazine published an interview with President Barack Obama in which he suggested that climate change would become a campaign issue this year.

    In results often at odds with the political debate in Washington, the survey conducted for Yale and George Mason University also found most Americans would vote for a candidate who raised taxes on coal, oil and natural gas – fossil fuels that emit climate-warming carbon dioxide when burned – while cutting income tax, in a revenue-neutral “tax swap.”

    This maneuver, which would not add to federal revenues but would change where they came from, has long been discussed by such disparate political actors as former Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat, and Bob Inglis, a Republican former congressman.

    Sixty-one percent of Americans surveyed said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supported the tax swap, while 20 percent said they would be less likely.

    When we get to 100 percent of the population, our politicians will finally do what is right. Sent April 26:

    While the First Amendment precludes an outright prohibition on the rhetoric of climate-change deniers, it’s increasingly obvious that America’s national conversation would be better off if these voices weren’t so unnaturally amplified. The anti-science statements of conservative politicians and their enablers in the media have helped to make reality-based environmental policies impossible to enact, even when a majority of Americans think they’re desirable. In the current atmosphere of petroleum-funded corruption, any legislative actions toward planetary responsibility are doomed from the start by corporate resistance to shrinking profit margins.

    A tax on carbon emissions is an idea whose time has come. If the money raised were returned to the middle class in the form of tax breaks or dividends, its economic effects would be overwhelmingly beneficial. But until we reduce our emissions of denialist hot air, such a policy is unlikely to advance through congress. Too bad we can’t tax lies.

    Warren Senders

    Year 3, Month 5, Day 4: Would You Like An “N” With Your BLT?

    The Washington Post notices:

    IN AN INTERVIEW that Rolling Stone published Wednesday, President Obama said that he thinks climate change will be a big issue in the coming election and that he will be “very clear” about his “belief that we’re going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way.”

    Maybe they should stop publishing George Will? Sent April 25:

    President Obama’s recent willingness to engage with the reality of climate change is welcome news for everyone, even science-rejecting denialists who vociferously decry policy any initiative smacking of environmental responsibility. The accelerating greenhouse effect has undoubtedly been a factor in the sudden proliferation of extreme weather reported everywhere around the globe during the past year, and this has surely been a factor in the public’s changing attitudes toward the problems of global heating — and in the President’s new tone on climate.

    Why has it taken so long? The President seems by nature to be a careful incrementalist: the sort of chief executive who’d have recoiled from hasty actions like the previous administration’s rush to unnecessary war. That’s all well and good, but perhaps as America prepares for a long, hot summer full of breaking weather records, he, and we, will decide that the time for careful incrementalism is over.

    Warren Senders

    Year 3, Month 5, Day 3: Mighty Lak A Rose…

    I don’t usually pay much attention to Canadian politics. But recently the Wildrose party in Alberta has been attracting some attention with their remarkably stupid statements about climate change. The former PM of Norway has some choice words for these dingalings, in an interview in Toronto’s Globe and Mail:

    The scientific basis for climate change has come under attack in Canada. Alberta’s Wildrose Party believes the link between human activity and global warming is inconclusive. How do you respond?

    That is anti-scientific and naive. Politicians and others that question the science, that’s not the right thing to do. We have to base ourselves on evidence.

    What message do you have for political leaders dealing with environmental issues?

    It is important not to be influenced by, and inspired by, laissez-faire attitudes, which first had an impact before the [U.S.] financial crisis and [the BP oil spill] in the Gulf of Mexico. When you liberalize regulations, and you leave it more to companies, whether banks or oil companies, I don’t think this is the right way to go. You have to have governance. You must have serious and strict regulations.

    She’s so sweet and forgiving, no? Not me. Sent April 24:

    While many words come to mind when describing politicians who have embraced climate-change denial for electoral advantage, “naive,” the adjective employed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, is not one of them. To win the approval of conservative voters, Wildrose candidates are following the path marked out by Tea Party activists in the United States: reject ideologically problematic facts and expertise; exploit ignorance; sow confusion.

    While voters may have many reasons for misunderstanding the work of climate scientists, politicians must be held to a higher standard. It is (or should be) their business to understand the real-world consequences of the policies they promote, and to take responsibility for the choices they advocate. The evidence for human causes of climate change is overwhelming and unequivocal; any politician arguing otherwise is either self-deluded or mendacious, and there is nothing ingenuous about either folly or lies. To describe denialism as “naive” is, well, naive.

    Warren Senders