Year 2, Month 6, Day 6: Take A Deep Breath. Now Cough, Please.

The President was in England recently, and addressed Parliament — without, apparently, mentioning climate much at all:

“No country can hide from the dangers of carbon pollution, which is why we must build on what was achieved in Copenhagen and Cancun, to leave our children a planet that is safer and cleaner,” Obama said in one of only two references to climate change brought on by human activity.

In a reference to the ongoing struggle to emerge from economic recession, Obama added, “The successes and failures of our own past can serve as an example for emerging economies: that it’s possible to grow without polluting, that lasting prosperity comes not from what a nation consumes, but from what it produces and from the investments it makes in its people and its infrastructure.”

The latter comment appears to be directed in part at China and India, whose spectacular economic growth threatens to multiply emissions of greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. The negotiations to renew a global climate pact, held in Copenhagen in 2009 and last year in Cancun, have been thwarted by tensions among developed and developing economies.

I had a version of this letter a while back in the Boston Globe. Sent May 25:

The Obama administration’s reluctance to address the problems of climate change is by now hardly a surprise. Given the vociferous nature of the denialist forces in Republican politics, and the pusillanimity of the media which should by rights be sounding the alarm, it is hardly surprising that the President has chosen to avoid the issue whenever possible. But this is not only because the GOP ranks are filled with “climate zombies,” ideologically fixated on absurd anti-science conspiracy theories, and it’s not only that the fourth estate has abdicated its responsibility to genuine journalism. Mr. Obama’s reluctance to use the phrase “climate change” must be understood diagnostically, as an indicator of the extent to which both political parties are controlled by the same corporate interests. Transforming our energy economy will be all but impossible until the fossil fuel industry can be persuaded that planetary survival is as profitable as species suicide.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 6, Day 5: We Need This Land For Future Exploitation!

Something a little different today. The Fall River Herald News (MA) runs a guest editorial from a couple of real-estate guys, extolling the importance of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection — from an economic POV. Good stuff, especially for those people who aren’t persuaded by anything other than the slavering jaws of naked capitalism:

It’s not every day the real estate community and the environmental community share common ground.

Increasingly, however, we understand a healthy economy and a healthy environment are mutually beneficial. We also understand the commonwealth, like every other state, faces a fiscal crisis that must be met with painful budget cuts and a disciplined focus on economic development. But we must avoid cuts which undermine the very economic growth and job creation essential to our recovery.

The commonwealth’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is more than a protector of the environment.

The “climate change news” for today (5/24) is all Australia, all the time. I haven’t gotten into an Aussie newspaper yet (though I did make New Zealand once), so I did a search for something closer to home. Sent May 24:

The “conflicting interests” of the real estate and environmental communities vanish when things are viewed from the proper perspective. It is only in the past century that people began purchasing land in order to make a quick profit; the notion of real estate as a short-term, high-yield investment is a relatively novel one. It’s also an idea with profoundly damaging consequences for the long-term health of entire regions, for if the land’s owners never know the land as our forbears once did, nothing can prevent grotesquely destructive exploitation. Nothing, that is, except local regulations and the Department of Environmental Protection. Needless to say, both of these are under attack from budget-cutting proponents, which makes the authors’ cogent defense of the DEP’s core mission very welcome. The interests of real-estate investors and environmentalists necessarily coincide; both groups have an interest in keeping the land alive and beautiful for centuries to come.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 6, Day 4: Lending A Word Here And There

An editorial in the Australia Courier calls for “Less Hot Air On The Climate Change Debate, Please.” A good piece, and worthy of some support from over here on this side of the marble:

For every scientist who supports common acceptance of global warming, the sceptics can roll out one who says the opposite.

But there needs to be a point where we, as a nation, take a side. And in this case, the cautious approach is to act, rather than do nothing.

It is time for the conversation to move past the debate and onto what we can do to ensure that we are acting before a crisis is upon us. Simply, the time is now.

Sent May 23:

The facts of climate change have been incontrovertible for a fairly long time. As early as 1953, Arctic ice melt was predicted as a consequence of the greenhouse effect, and for the past six decades the evidence has been accumulating. At this point the scientific consensus on human causes of global warming is extremely robust; the only people in the climate science community who disagree turn out to be in the pay of industries with much to lose in a transition to a low-carbon energy economy. And by presenting these “skeptics” as equal countervoices to the thousands of very worried climatologists, the world’s news media provide protective cover for those who seek to delay a shift to energy sustainability. Were this a trivial political matter, it would sort itself out, given a chance. But these stakes are very high indeed; it is not only Australia whose future hangs in the balance.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 6, Day 3: Rick’s A Dick

The Miami Herald’s Fred Grimm has a column reprinted in the Kansas City Star, noting the ignorance of Rick Scott and the problems it presents:

Climate scientists are lending their computer modeling and data analysis and research findings and learned assumptions to the new governor’s first state hurricane conference this week. Gov. Rick Scott seems fine with that, as long as the brainy guys confine their theories to the short term.

In his short speech opening the conference Wednesday, for example, Scott didn’t object to warnings that Florida is statistically likely to absorb a big hit in 2011. He promised Florida would be ready. “We’re going to be very prepared.”

Scott, however, only accepts climate science devoted to the upcoming hurricane season. When it comes to the long-term stuff – the overwhelming research that warns of man-made global warming – he remains Florida’s denier in chief.

Idiot. Buffoon. Psychopath. Sociopath.

Sent May 22:

Of course Florida governor Rick Scott has seen nothing to persuade him that global climate change is real and dangerous. He’s a perfect specimen of the modern Republican politician: obsessed with short-term gain, oblivious to long-term consequences. For Governor Scott and others of his ilk, “future generations” exist only as a phrase to be used in public in order to manipulate low-information voters. Like the Rapturists whose vision of the future ended last Saturday, these politicians think no further than the next election cycle; their corporate sponsors, similarly, think no further than the next fiscal year’s profits.

When it comes to the dangers posed by climate change, we need genuinely far-sighted leadership — leaders who are ready to confront the scientifically confirmed bad news head on and help all of us understand what we as a country need to do in order to secure a sustainable future for our descendants.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 6, Day 2: How Many Times Must A Man Turn His Head?

The Miami Herald runs a piece on how climate change has become a low priority for Florida’s government since the Scott takeover. Big surprise.

Four hundred scientists gathered in Copenhagen recently to talk about the warming temperatures in the Arctic. Their conclusion: The Arctic’s glaciers are melting faster than anyone expected due to man-made climate change.

As a result, the world’s sea level will rise faster than previously projected, rising at least two feet 11 inches and perhaps as high as five feet three inches by 2100, they said.

In low-lying Florida, where 95 percent of the population lives within 35 miles of its 1,200 miles of coastline, a swelling of the tides could cause serious problems. So what is Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection doing about dealing with climate change?

“DEP is not pursuing any programs or projects regarding climate change,” an agency spokeswoman said in an email to the Times earlier this month.

(snip)

Crist’s successor, Gov. Rick Scott, doesn’t think climate change is real, even though it’s accepted as fact by everyone from NASA to the Army to the Vatican.

“I’ve not been convinced that there’s any man-made climate change,” Scott said last week. “Nothing’s convinced me that there is.”

That guy is really a pustulent sore on the body politic. Sent May 21:

When Governor Scott pronounces himself unpersuaded about the reality of global climate change, saying that nothing’s convinced him of its existence, he reveals more about himself and the contemporary Republican party he represents than about the state of contemporary climate science. In the world of science, nobody needs convincing anymore; evidence for the human causes and catastrophic consequences of climate change is overwhelming and utterly unambiguous. In GOP-world, however, the laws of physics and natural phenomena are subordinate to popular preference; the disasters attendant to the greenhouse effect will be nullified by tea-party decree. Why isn’t Mr. Scott convinced? Hint: it’s not because he’s examined the evidence. Rather, it’s because he (along with his ideological allies throughout the country) is philosophically opposed to any policy that doesn’t generate higher profit margins for the fossil fuel industry. The Governor’s already made up his mind; don’t confuse him with the facts.

Warren Senders

Year 2, Month 6, Day 1: I Wanna Go To Andorra

The Guardian (UK) notes that the US armed forces are actively preparing for the problems of climate change:

Federal legislation to combat climate change is quashed for the foreseeable future, scuttled by congressional climate cranks who allege the climate-science jury is still out. What’s become clear is that, for some, the jury will always be out. We can’t stack scientific facts high enough to hop over the fortified ideological walls they’ve erected around themselves. Fortunately, though, a four-star trump card waits in the wings: the US national security apparatus.

The comments are priceless. Sent May 20:

The cognitive dissonance involved in being a modern-day Republican is extreme, and it will no doubt be further exacerbated by the conclusions drawn by the United States military on the dangers posed by climate change. With a record that includes decades of posturing about “deferring to the generals” on defense issues, the GOP is now in a bit of a box when it comes to responding to the armed forces’ consensus on the strategic consequences of the greenhouse effect. Forced by the exigencies of Republican primary elections to deny simultaneously both scientific evidence and the advice of their military leaders, these anti-science legislators have an impossible needle to thread. Were the issues involved not ones of such great moment, the dilemma of contemporary conservatives would be irresistibly comical. Alas, this is no laughing matter — an assessment bolstered by every single strategic analysis of climate change and its epiphenomena.

Warren Senders

31 May 2011, 12:01am
environment:
by

leave a comment

  • Meta

  • SiteMeter

  • Brighter Planet

    Brighter Planet's 350 Challenge
  • Year 2, Month 5, Day 31: Shrill. Shrill. Shrill.

    The Myrtle Beach Sun-News runs a column by Michal Hall, who is shrill:

    Global warming has become accepted by an estimated 99 percent of all scientists, most religious groups (even 70 percent of evangelicals), both political parties (Bush, McCain and Obama have accepted it) and a constantly growing number of the American people. Still, some doubts remain. For us to honestly address such a life-changing issue, everyone has to be on board. For those who still might have some doubts, here are the facts:

    We do need greenhouse gases to blanket the Earth in order to keep it warm enough to sustain life. These gases allow sunlight to enter and warm us. They hold in some of the warmth while also allowing some of it to escape. Without this natural effect, most of the sun’s warmth would escape into space, and the Earth’s surface would be very cold.

    But global warming is caused by a build-up in the greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide). Scientists have studied the correlation between the earth’s temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations over the last 500,000 years and have clearly seen that when CO2 rises, the temperature rises. Over the past 150 years (when industrialization emerged) we have seen a clear rise in CO2 and a corresponding rise in temperature. When the greenhouse gases thicken, heat cannot escape, and heat rises.

    Figured I’d get Michal’s back on this one, as he’s getting hammered by Kochbot trolls in the comments section. Sent May 19:

    Yes, indeed — it’s time to face the facts: the climatic consequences of a century’s worth of wasteful consumption of fossil fuels are going to be far more drastic than anyone imagined. We were warned: climate scientists have been predicting the disastrous consequences of the atmospheric greenhouse effect for over fifty years, warning us with ever-increasing specificity to change our ways if we wished to avoid catastrophe. While humans are indeed a “resilient species,” we won’t have a chance to demonstrate our resourcefulness if we don’t stop hiding from reality. Americans were once known for optimism, inventiveness and a “can-do” spirit that was admired throughout the world – yet now we ignore the genuine threat looming on the horizon while focusing our attention on trivialities. While our media and politicians are complicit in this collective denial of global climate change, the responsibility for concerted action is ultimately ours. Let’s get to work.

    Warren Senders

    Year 2, Month 5, Day 30: Wheeeeee!

    The Chicago Tribune introduces us to the new “normal”:

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Heavy rains, deep snowfalls, monster floods and killing droughts are signs of a “new normal” of extreme U.S. weather events fueled by climate change, scientists and government planners said on Wednesday.

    “It’s a new normal and I really do think that global weirding is the best way to describe what we’re seeing,” climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University told reporters.

    “We are used to certain conditions and there’s a lot going on these days that is not what we’re used to, that is outside our current frame of reference,” Hayhoe said on a conference call with other experts, organized by the non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists.

    Sent May 18:

    Colder colds, hotter hots. Rainier rains and drier droughts. Stormier storms, disrupting more lives, more and more often. Welcome to the twenty-first century. And the twenty-second. And the twenty-third. Unlike the climate humanity’s been accustomed to for the past ten or twelve thousand years, our new “normal” is the environmental equivalent of a self-destructive alcoholic bender. Atmospheric CO2 will contribute to the greenhouse effect for centuries, which means that even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, we’d feel the effects of climate change for a long time to come. Is the inevitability of catastrophic weather events a rationale for inaction? Hardly. Rather, we’re faced with a crucial choice: every step we take towards reducing our consumption of oil and coal will mitigate the storms of future generations. Will we continue our profligate ways, or wake up and address the greatest threat humanity’s ever faced since the dawn of civilization?

    Warren Senders

    Year 2, Month 5, Day 29: Happy Whatever.

    Another response to the UK plan to reduce GG emissions 50% by 2027, this one going to the San Francisco Chronicle.

    Sent May 17:

    Britain’s plans for drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions show that at least one government in the industrialized West is taking the threat of climate change seriously — which implies that the UK’s political establishment is capable of thinking in the long term. America, however, is paralyzed — incapable of any meaningful response, let alone one that unleashes our country’s creative and adaptive potential. The climate-change denialists currently in controlling the House of Representatives have a pathological resistance to scientific evidence, a proven inability to think beyond the next electoral cycle, and fiscal ties to the fossil fuel industry — a deadly combination of ignorance, cupidity and shortsightedness that should be an immediate disqualification for any elected office in this country. With our country’s unique combination of expertise and imagination, we could handily outdo Great Britain in emissions reduction — if we can stop denying the existence of climate change.

    Warren Senders

    May 29 is my birthday. I’m 53.

    Theonormativity?

    My kid regularly participates in psychological studies. There are quite a few universities in my area that have grad programs in child development; they’re always looking for young volunteers to follow whatever procedures the budding psychologists have in mind.

    Usually these are questions of categorization, or development of mental constructs — differing objects are offered and taxonomical schemata are offered; the whole process is videotaped, and the results written up. And the kid gets a toy — a stuffed animal from one lab, a plastic frisbee, ball or bucket from another — which is of course what makes it appealing to her.

    This has been going on for three years or so. It’s fun, and a diversion from our usual routine.

    Last month we went in for another such study. The young woman who was conducting the interview explained to me that my daughter would be asked questions about her religious beliefs (among other subjects) in the first half of the interview, and asked to make inferences about other children (pictures of whom were shown on a computer screen) based on statements from the interviewer.

    Okay. But since this was going to touch on a possibly complicated topic, I thought I should know more about what went on. I asked for a copy of the interview video.

    Which they finally sent me.

    Grrrrr.

    more »