Year 3, Month 1, Day 18: Life Is Hard, But….

The State Journal (“West Virginia’s Only Business Newspaper”) notes some relatively simple things we can do to help out:

While working through the expensive problem of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to slow climate change, why not go ahead and tackle emissions of methane and soot — two easier problems that will pay for themselves and then some?

The suggestion, from an international team of 13 researchers lead by a NASA scientist, comes this week in “Simultaneously Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security” in the journal Science.

The researchers identified 14 measures they say could reduce warming by 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050. It’s a significant part of the 3.6 degrees’ warming that climate negotiators meeting in Copenhagen in 2009 targeted as a goal to stay below.

Measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions seem mainly to be expensive and controversial up front and to yield climate benefits only in the very long run.

But the measures proposed by these researchers for reducing methane and soot cost little and yield a range of substantial benefits in a shorter time frame.

The problem? Aw, hell. You and I both know what the problem is. People with no brains can’t recognize “no-brainers,” can they? Sent January 13:

The menu of things that can be done easily to address the burgeoning climate crisis is actually pretty substantial. Reducing atmospheric methane and soot should be a no-brainer, since such an approach not only makes sense as a strategy for reducing global warming, but offers both economic and public health benefits to the country as a whole.

Unfortunately, as long as one half of our government is controlled by people who reject science when it conflicts with either their electoral prospects or their profit margins, even such a straightforward proposal will be hindered and hamstrung by unnecessary political posturing. What was once a rational voice for business interests in American government has now become an ideologically fixated bloc incapable of adopting even the most obviously sensible policy initiatives. When GOP climate-change denialists pander to extremist elements within their own constituencies, they wind up damaging the communities they purport to serve.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 1, Day 16: The Winnah!

The San Antonio Chronicle notes the recent release of EPA data on GHG emissions. Texas, of course, is number one:

As the nation’s light switch and gas pump, Texas releases far more greenhouse gases into the air than any other state, according to federal data released Wednesday.

Texas’ coal-fired power plants and oil refineries generated 294 million tons of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in 2010, more than the next two states — Pennsylvania and Florida — combined, the data shows.

The Environmental Protection Agency released the data by industrial facility for the first time as part of a broader effort to reduce emissions linked to global warming.

{snip}

The American Petroleum Institute, a leading industry trade group, said the federal data proves that there is no reason to include oil refineries in any new rules because they generate a small fraction of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, compared to coal-fired power plants.

“Air quality continues to improve, and we’re doing our part,” said Howard Feldman, API’s director of regulatory and scientific affairs. “The last thing we need now are more burdensome or unnecessary regulations that will create a drag on business efforts to invest, expand and put people back to work.”

The American Petroleum Institute should go f**k itself. Sent January 12:

In a macro-scale version of the “My carbon footprint is bigger than your carbon footprint” bumper sticker, Texan exceptionalists will surely savor the news that their state ranks highest in the country in greenhouse emissions. American exceptionalists, meanwhile, must comfort themselves over our country’s loss of first place in global CO2 output with the knowledge that we are still number one in per capita releases of greenhouse gases.

Obviously, this is a foolish straw-man argument. But the American Petroleum Institute’s response to the EPA is pretty silly, too; they’re basically saying, “Since we’re not as bad as coal, let’s end all those burdensome regulations!” Once freed from regulation, of course, they’ll be free to pollute more comprehensively.

Ultimately, however, the ultimate absurdity is that in order to maintain our growth-driven economy, we’re prepared to trigger a greenhouse effect of a magnitude unprecedented in human history. That’s not silly. That’s suicidal.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 1, Day 15: That’s When My Love Comes Tumblin’ Down

The Deseret News (UT) runs a story from the L.A. Times about the assessment of the situation from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

LOS ANGELES — Doomsday is one minute closer, folks.

The hands on the face of the symbolic Doomsday Clock have been repositioned to five minutes before midnight — signaling how close we may be to a global catastrophe unless we get our act together.

On Monday, the Doomsday Clock read six minutes before midnight. But on Tuesday, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, self-tasked with informing the public about the pending threat from nuclear weapons, climate change and emerging technologies, decided to push the clock up a minute. It now reads five minutes before midnight — in recognition of a growing nuclear threat and damage from climate change.

“Inaction on key issues including climate change, and rising international tensions motivate the movement of the clock,” Lawrence Krauss, co-chairman of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists board, said in a statement released Tuesday.

The statement added: “As we see it, the major challenge at the heart of humanity’s survival in the 21st century is how to meet energy needs for economic growth in developing and industrial countries without further damaging the climate, exposing people to loss of health and community, and without risking further spread of nuclear weapons, and in fact setting the stage for global reductions.”

Only one minute? Sent January 11:

Given the steady accumulation of ominous news on climate change over the past year, it’s actually surprising that the analysts at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists only moved their “doomsday clock” a single minute closer to the symbolic midnight point.

Even leaving aside the specific climatic impacts of a runaway greenhouse effect, there’s no doubt that the coming century’s droughts, wildfires, extreme weather, and rising ocean levels will bring profound geopolitical consequences — resource wars and refugee crises, often in some of the world’s most volatile areas.

And yet, the three major US networks broadcast only 14 news stories about climate change — a total of 32 minutes — during 2011. More time was given to celebrity weddings and the latest scandal du jour than to the most significant threat our species has faced in recorded history. Our collective failure to address this slow-motion catastrophe will have devastating consequences. Midnight is nigh.

Warren Senders

Published.

Year 3, Month 1, Day 14: Do The Right Thing?

County legislators in New York are scared to do the right thing, because they might look like they’re agreeing with (gasp!) hippies:

CANTON — St. Lawrence County legislators liked much of what they heard Monday about saving money through energy changes, but stopped short of wanting the projects included in a Climate Action Plan that was shelved earlier for discussion until at least February.

Legislators voted 7-7, with Legislator Vernon D. “Sam” Burns, D-Ogdensburg, absent, not to refer the draft county Climate Action Plan back to staff for revision and then disagreed over whether that meant they wanted to proceed with some of the measures.

{snip}

Some legislators who voted against revising the climate plan — which has been tabled twice — said that the county would be wise to move ahead with cost-saving proposals but that they did not need to be part of a plan they find over-reaching.

The breakdown of the vote was almost exactly along party lines. Sent January 10:

The Republican party’s incessant politicization of science over the past four decades has led to a lot of bad policy decisions. It’s also made it harder to implement good policies. St. Lawrence county lawmakers’ unwillingness to include energy saving strategies under a rubric of climate change adaptation is an excellent example of this phenomenon.

On the face of it, energy efficiency is about the least objectionable policy goal imaginable. But because the word “conservation” has become anathema to conservative legislators and media figures, any move to increase efficiency and reduce waste must be framed in purely financial terms if it is to have any hope of success. Furthermore, any suggestion that such a fiscally sensible policy is in fact consistent with climate change response strategies is ipso facto a kiss of death in the electoral arena.

On the grand scale, Monday’s dispute in Canton may seem small — but it is symptomatic of our broader national inability to act in our own best interests for fear of political consequences.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 1, Day 12: Lead, Follow, or Get Out Of The Way!

The Manchester Union Leader (founded and nurtured by New Hampshire Ur-Wingnut extraordinare William Loeb) runs a press release from the state’s Fish and Game Department:

GREENLAND, N.H. — Coastal New Hampshire is better prepared to deal with the impacts of climate change after a first-ever Coastal NH Summit held the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department’s Hugh Gregg Coastal Conservation Center in Greenland, N.H., in December.

The event, hosted by the Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (GBNERR — managed by Fish and Game), the Great Bay Stewards and the NERRS Science Collaborative, highlighted local climate research and climate preparedness efforts and tools, aiming to identify gaps in information and actions that could help local, state, federal and non-profit partners move forward effectively on this critical issue.

“Coastal New Hampshire is already seeing the effects of a changing climate. The Climate Summit demonstrates that local research and action to understand and prepare for our changing climate are underway. There is work to be done to minimize the impacts to our economy and natural resources. The Summit, through the participation of over 100 attendees from a diversity of sectors and professional fields, will help direct future efforts in the most efficient manner,” said GBNERR Coastal Training Program Coordinator Steve Miller.

I read Kevin Cash’s book, “Who The Hell Is William Loeb?” many years ago. The publisher was a truly despicable man.

Here’s my letter to them, which is quite gracious in tone, considering its recipient. Sent January 8:

It’s interesting to observe the dimensions of the disconnect between regional authorities and national politicians on the subject of climate change. Even as the Republican presidential candidates are vociferously denying either that the climate is changing or human beings have anything to do with it, local and regional agencies are working hard to lay the foundations for the adaptations we’re all going to have to make in a post-greenhouse-effect future.

The facts are simple. If our species is to survive and prosper in the coming centuries, we can no longer afford the luxury of politically expedient denial. The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department understands this, as evidenced by their recent Coastal NH Summit. Does the Republican party? It’s a lot easier to pretend a problem doesn’t exist when you are shielded from its effects — and if there is one word that describes most of America’s politicians, it’s “shielded.”

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 1, Day 11: Sharks and Cockroaches, Sharks and Cockroaches, Sharks and Cockroaches.

Sigh. Another day, another mess o’ platitudes. Ted Kaufman (formerly D-DE) writes in the Louisiana Advertiser that:

We are beginning a new year, and the silence in Congress is still deafening. Will there ever be a debate about what should be done to deal with climate change?

Oh, you don’t “believe” in it? If you do not, please, suspend that belief system for just a few minutes and take a look at what the major scientific organizations in this country say.

» NASA. The startling timeline chart leads you directly into a summary of why the evidence for rapid climate change is compelling. There are extensive sections documenting sea level rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme events, and ocean acidification.

{snip}

» Even the American Medical Association, says “scientific evidence shows that the world’s climate is changing and that the results have public health consequences.”

The debate we need now is not about whether climate change is a reality. I hope that, for the sake of our children and grandchildren, 2012 will be the year our leaders finally listen to the scientific community and begin to fashion solutions to protect our world.

All true, of course. But do you notice anything missing? I did.

Sent January 7:

While Ted Kaufman’s remarks on Congress’ failure to address climate change are accurate and timely, he fails to address one of the problem’s most significant components: the influence on American politics, governance, and media wielded by corporations whose short-term profits are threatened by any attempts to move our energy economy in the direction of long-term sustainability.

Even before the disastrous Citizens United decision awarding collective entities the free speech rights of individuals, multinational corporations’ power over what we as citizens can see, hear, and read has increased exponentially — thanks largely to the Reagan-era media deregulation. Combined with the grotesque power exercised by K-Street lobbyists, this has brought us government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. In this light, the senator’s role in the financial sector bailout lends a certain irony to his remarks on Congressional dysfunction in the face of a genuine existential threat.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 1, Day 9: Morans.

The L.A. Times runs a story on the Pacific Institute’s “Bad Science” Award, which goes to a deserving cast of characters (Murdoch was runner-up, which will give you an idea):

The 2011 “Climate B.S. of the Year Award” goes to the entire field of candidates currently stumping in New Hampshire for the Republican Party presidential nomination, the Pacific Institute announced Thursday.

The awards, in their second year, are intended to distinguish the most active among so-called climate change deniers.

In this case, “B.S.” stands for bad science, according to hydroclimatologist Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

“There’s a lot of very serious pushback in the scientific community about bad climate science being pushed by a small group of skeptics,” said Gleick from his office in Oakland. “There’s plenty of formal pushback in the literature. This was an attempt, really, to highlight some of the most egregious examples over the past year in a way that was a little more lighthearted.”

The Republicans seeking the White House won this year’s contest “hands down,” the institute’s announcement says: “Not a single one of the Republican candidates for president has a position on climate change that is consistent with the actual science accepted by 97-98% of all climate scientists and every national academy of sciences on the planet.”

It gave me a chance to use the China Hands reference again. While this letter works fairly well I am not entirely pleased with it; it could be more euphonious if I had more time to devote to its creation. But it’s 149 words. What the hell. Sent January 5:

It is only in the past fifty years that the GOP has made a rejection of science a linchpin of its policies and electoral strategy. Capitalizing on a long-standing undercurrent of anti-intellectualism in American society, Republican politicians have long stigmatized professors, scientists and experts as “liberal elitists.” While they’ve won applause from constituents, these attacks ultimately redound to the detriment of the country as a whole.

The Republican party’s arrogant rejection of the crucial findings of climate scientists is of a piece with the McCarthy-era purge of “China hands” from the State Department, rendering America’s East Asian policy rudderless in the face of Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnamese nationalism. Ignoring the experts didn’t work out then, did it? It won’t work out well now, either, as GOP presidential aspirants eagerly dismiss scientists’ urgent warnings of runaway climate change. Ignorance may be politically blissful, but it always makes for bad policy.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 1, Day 7: (cue scary theme music)

The Christian Science Monitor, among others, reports on a troubling development: corporations have learned how to swim:

In what is being hailed as the world’s first evidence of inter-species breeding among sharks, a team of marine researchers at the University of Queensland have identified 57 hybrid sharks in waters off Australia’s east coast.

{snip}

“Wild hybrids are usually hard to find, so detecting hybrids and their offspring is extraordinary,” said Ovenden.

Hybridization is common among many animal species, including some fish, but until now it has been unknown among sharks. In most fish species, fertilization takes place outside the body, with the males and females each releasing their gametes into the water where they mix. Blacktip sharks, by contrast, give birth to live young and actively choose their mates, which, as the scientists discovered, can sometimes be of a different species.

Ovenden speculated that the two species began mating in response to environmental change, as the hybrid blacktips are able to travel further south to cooler waters than the Australian blacktips. The team is looking into climate change and human fishing, among other potential triggers.

This is straining a bit for effect, but it was fun while it lasted. Sent January 3:

With the discovery of a new species of hybrid shark in the waters off Australia, we’re getting a glimpse of what the next few centuries have in store for us. In a post climate-change future, Earth’s fauna will respond to extreme weather conditions the only way they can — by adapting under extreme evolutionary pressure. It’s just our luck that the critters involved are vicious, soulless, mindless, predatory killing machines propelled only by the most basic of survival instincts.

Meanwhile, humanity’s attempts to mitigate runaway climate change are stymied by the corporate interests most implicated in causing the greenhouse effect — fossil fuel companies, which could just as easily be described as vicious, soulless, mindless, predatory killing machines propelled only by the most basic of survival instincts. Are twenty-first century mega-corporations the economic analogue to new species of sharks?

Will it ever be safe to go back in the water?

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 1, Day 6: I Can Haz Latin?

The New York Times reports on the hunt for whoever it was that leaked the CRU emails:

Some have noted that in 2009, the online trickster used the initials R.C. and linked to a zip file named “FOI2009,” an apparent reference to Freedom of Information statutes in both Britain and the United States.

(Much of the criticism of climate scientists at the University of East Anglia centered on delays in responding to Freedom of Information requests, usually from climate skeptics, for access to all of their data and even their e-mails.)

This time, he signed his blog comments simply as “FOIA,” a common nickname for the leaker in online discussions of the e-mail affair.

Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington and a frequent spokesman for climate change skeptics, said the encryption of the file had challenged his thinking on FOIA’s identity.

Previously, he said, he had assumed the leaker was an employee of the University of East Anglia who had been troubled by the denial of requests for the prompt public release of scientists’ full data and e-mails under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act.

But a principled commitment to open information is not in keeping with an encrypted file, Mr. Ebell said. So he suspects a different kind of intelligence is at work.

“It is very suggestive of someone who has thought through how to cause the con men at the C.R.U. the maximum possible anxiety,” he said, referring to the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. “It is like knowing your building has a bomb in it that could be detonated at any time.”

I know this one won’t be published, but it felt pretty good to write. Sent January 2:

To gain insight into what contemporary “conservatives” are doing and thinking, just look at the accusations they level at others. While this habit is ingrained in Republican political strategists, and can be found in their remarks on issues across the full policy spectrum, it is spectacularly on display when it comes to the GOP’s rejection of the science of climate change. Who better to claim that climatologists manipulate numbers and information for financial gain than Texas Governor Rick Perry, whose administration raised crass, pecuniary data-mining to Cheney-esque levels? Who better to malign scientists as deceitful frauds than Newt Gingrich, primus inter pares in the Republican mendacity sweeps? When a spokesman for the Competitive Enterprise Institute calls climate scientists “con men,” it’s just another example of projection.

Unfortunately, the he-said/she-said stenography that passes for reportage in much of today’s media gives more credit to outlandish claims than to their refutation.

Warren Senders

Year 4, Month 1, Day 5: You Only Gave Me Your Invitation

The Delaware News Journal agrees that we have a problem:

Croze is one of the many citizens, scientists, academics, public officials, business owners and environmentalists we’ve interviewed during our six-month investigation on the impact climate change and rising sea levels are having in Delaware.

We pursued this story because it’s clear that Delaware, which is sinking and has the lowest elevation of any state in America, is highly exposed to sea level rise.

We stayed with it because coastal communities demanding government intervention at taxpayer expense is quickly becoming an important public policy debate – one infused with hope for solutions, heartbreaking loss and unsettling predictions that would dramatically change the lifestyle we cherish in a landscape blessed with beaches, tidal estuaries and marshes rich with wildlife.

The overwhelming majority of scientists say climate change is real, as does Gov. Jack Markell and Colin O’Mara, secretary of Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.

They start to call out the mis-informers, although there is still a bit of false equivalency in the piece. Sent December 30:

As one of the states most vulnerable to rising sea levels, Delaware is a perfect example of the importance of including climate change in debates on state development and sustainability policy. Only by recognizing scientific reality can our lawmakers craft legislation that is more than political theater.

For a counter-example, just look at several other East coast states whose politicians have decided that dramatic posturing is more important than the future of their constituencies. Earlier this year, North Carolina passed a law prohibiting estimates of sea level rise from using anything other than historical climate data, effectively banning measurements that recognize the accelerating global warming which climatologists predict. Such willful ignorance highlights climate change’s importance as an educational challenge as well as an environmental and moral issue. The misinformation propagated by petroleum-funded think tanks and a complaisant media has delayed meaningful action on this issue for far too long.

Warren Senders