The Tide Continues To Turn

From recent New York Times article...

At the global climate change negotiations now wrapping up in Peru, American negotiators are being met with something wildly unfamiliar: cheers, applause, thanks and praise. It is an incongruous moment, arriving at a time when so many aspects of American foreign policy are under fire. But the enthusiastic reception on climate issues comes a month after a historic announcement by the United States and China, the world’s two largest polluters, that they would jointly commit to cut their emissions. Many international negotiators say the deal is the catalyst that could lead to a new global climate change accord that would, for the first time, commit every nation in the world to cutting its own planet-warming emissions.

The tide continues to turn...

Future Climate Change Debate

That Loser Obama

For someone who just lost an election, President Obama looks an awful lot like a winner. That's largely due to his recent trip to Asia in which he secured deals with China on carbon emissions and trade. The latter is massive considering the reduction in trade tariffs that the new agreement outlines. And the agreement on carbon emissions is the first of its kind between the world's two biggest carbon polluters.

The president has set the tone for the last two years of his presidency. He is going to get things done-with or without Congress-and that's likely going to be a problem for the group of 12 year-olds that are desperate to see him fail. What they need to understand is that it's in their best interest (see: 2016) to be able to point to some achievements that they had a hand in. Failure to do so will not sit well when the voter turnout goes above 40 percent:)

How Climate Change Changed Tom Steyer

Here's a great piece from Tom Steyer on how climate change altered the course of his life. A very worthwhile read from a man that is a living example of how wealth can be used in pursuit of actually solving problems as opposed to making them worse.

Reduction Emissions Already Achieved

With bowels being blown and predictions of the US economy swirling down a boiling pit of sewage due to the president's new carbon emissions regulations, the right has completely failed to note the following: the 30 percent reduction the president is calling for has already been achieved in some parts of the country. And guess what?

No boiling pit of sewage.

Take a look at this recent piece from the New York Times and the Georgetown Climate Center. 

At least 10 states cut their emissions by that amount or more between 2005 and 2012, and several other states were well on their way, almost two decades before Mr. Obama’s clock for the nation runs out.

That does not mean these states are off the hook under the Obama plan unveiled this week — they will probably be expected to cut more to help achieve the overall national goal — but their strides so far have not brought economic ruin. In New England, a region that has made some of the biggest cuts in emissions, residential electricity bills fell 7 percent from 2005 to 2012, adjusted for inflation. And economic growth in the region ran slightly ahead of the national average.

Once again, Republicans are essentially lying about the detrimental effects of these new regulations. They are also continuing to lie about cap and trade.

Through a program called cap and trade, the Northeastern states also impose a small price on emissions of carbon dioxide from power generation, and plow the proceeds back into energy-efficiency programs, such as retrofitting homes and businesses, lowering electricity bills. And the states have encouraged the growth of emissions-free renewable power and more judicious use of energy. David W. Cash, the Massachusetts commissioner of environmental protection, said he saw a direct link between the state’s above-average economic performance in recent years and lower energy bills for businesses and consumers. 

“Every dollar they’re not spending on coal that comes from Colombia or natural gas that comes from Pennsylvania is a dollar that stays here in Massachusetts,” Mr. Cash said.

So, there goes another bullshit myth.

When will the rest of the United States stop listening to these bozos?

Having The Back of Outdated Coal Plants

The Navy Comes Through

Our government does more good things than people want to give them credit for which gets pretty frustrating for me. Here's a great example:

US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel, Allowing Ships To Stay At Sea Longer.

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel could one day relieve the military’s dependence on oil-based fuels and is being heralded as a “game changer” because it could allow military ships to develop their own fuel and stay operational 100 percent of the time, rather than having to refuel at sea. The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, which has already flown a model aircraft on it.

Amazing!

Consider that this same technology will be put out to the private sector at some point as well. That would completely change the face of energy on the planet. Countries like our own have access to abundant seawater which means we would be a powerhouse. Juxtapose that with out ability to innovate and that second American century is looking crystal clear.

Church of the Climate Denier

Thinking Beyond Keystone

The anti-Keystone people need to think beyond the TransCanada pipeline they are so vehemently against. Take a look at this graphic from a recent piece in the Times. Honestly, what Keystone would represent in terms of carbon emissions is a sliver compared to everything else. So, what does this mean and what is being done about it?

Experts say that to make a serious dent in American carbon emissions, Mr. Obama’s administration would have to enact policies that would force the two most polluting sectors of the nation’s economy — cars and coal plants — to slash their emissions. Mr. Obama has already signed a United Nations accord pledging that the United States will cut its greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050; there is simply no way to hit those targets, experts say, other than by going after cars and coal. And he then would have to make the case to other nations that the United States had taken action — and that they must, too.
He is making some headway on those fronts. 

In his first term, Mr. Obama’s E.P.A. used the authority of the Clean Air Act to issue tough new vehicle fuel-economy standards of 54.5 miles a gallon by 2025. The regulations forced automakers to build fleets of fuel-sippers, and according to the E.P.A. they will lead to a cut of about 180 million tons of carbon a year by 2020, rising to 580 million tons by 2030 and 1.1 billion tons annually by 2050. 

The agency is now drafting a regulation, expected in June, to slash pollution from existing coal-fired power plants. Details aren’t yet available, but experts estimate that it will cut an average of 200 million to 500 million tons of carbon emissions annually within a decade. And the E.P.A. estimated that regulations on building and appliance efficiency have cut or prevented the annual emission of 350 million tons of carbon. That means the combined impact of the current and forthcoming E.P.A. regulations could lead to cuts of over one billion tons of emissions annually.

So, if the anti-Keystone people really want to make a dent in carbon emissions, they should support and help the president to reach his goal. I'm very tired of liberals who say the president has done nothing for the environment. His actions speak for themselves.

Turning Seawater Into Fuel

Mention the Defense Department these days and you'll get shit from both the left and the right. The left hates everything they do and fails to recognize how they are leaders in non military activity such as breast cancer research. The right complains about how much money they spend and how they are in a constant state of intervention around the world.

Yet, it's stories like this that show that they are of enormous benefit to our society.

After decades of experiments, U.S. Navy scientists believe they may have solved one of the world’s great challenges: how to turn seawater into fuel.The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel could one day relieve the military’s dependence on oil-based fuels and is being heralded as a “game changer” because it could allow military ships to develop their own fuel and stay operational 100 percent of the time, rather than having to refuel at sea.

Consider the implications of this as related to climate change. Obviously, seawater is in ample supply and this technology could massively reduce carbon emissions and put us on a path for renewable and sustainable energy for quite a long time.

Way to go, US Military!

Latest Climate Chane Report From IPCC

The IPCC has just published its latest report on climate change. It details the impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability associated with climate change. An example of this would be the risk associated with food insecurity due to more intense droughts, floods, and heat waves in a warmer world, especially for poorer countries.

What strikes me as ironic about the food shortage issue is this is the exact same outcome seen by conservatives as a result of our federal government's mishandling of our economy. I got to hear about it all weekend at a recent family gathering from my brother in law who is basically inconsolable. "Our children's futures are being mortgaged away" he cried many times yet the very real danger presented by climate change bounced off the bubble. "Liberal propaganda...liberal plot to control us..." were words I heard any time the subject came up.

It's not just climate change, though. They have no concern whatsoever about the abuse of power of corporations, our dilapidated infrastructure, the inability of parents to think globally in terms of our education system or our health care system...you know, the ACTUAL problems we have as opposed to the phantom menaces they make up (actually it's only one menace...the federal government).

So, why do conservatives worry about things that aren't likely to happen and go completely limp when it comes to things that likely will happen?

World Meteorological Organization: Extreme Weather Due To Climate Change

A recent search for the annual report from the World Meteorological Organization brought me to Fox News of all places.

A rise in sea levels is leading to increasing damage from storm surges and coastal flooding, as demonstrated by Typhoon Haiyan, the agency's Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said. The typhoon in November killed at least 6,100 people and caused $13 billion in damage to the Philippines and Vietnam. Australia, meanwhile, had its hottest year on record. 

"Many of the extreme events of 2013 were consistent with what we would expect as a result of human-induced climate change," Jarraud said. He also cited other costly weather disasters such as $22 billion damage from central European flooding in June, $10 billion in damage from Typhoon Fitow in China and Japan, and a $10 billion drought in much of China.

Perhaps the fact that Fox allowed this on their site is a sign of a shift in ideology. It actually makes sense when you think about it given that Fox is a huge supporter of the corporate world and firms are starting to lose money as a result of climate change.

What We Know About Climate Change

A recent report from American Association for the Advancement of Science, spearheaded by Nobel Prize Winner Mario J Molina, clearly illustrates the threat posed by climate change. It targets a more general audience of Americans who need to understand that the danger posed is very real and could affect their children and grandchildren unless action is taken now.

This is a good report to share with people who don't want to be drowned in the science of climate change. For that, you can always visit this site. This new report is more of a summation of where we are at and what can be done.  I'm hoping this can be the beginning of a greater awareness about climate change and a move away from the caveman-ish "let's wait until we are on fire before we do something" mentality.

Democrats and Republicans Are The Same?

U.S. Senate Democrats pulling all-nighter on climate change

Uh...really?

Spokesman For Science

Great piece in the Times about how Alan Alda is working to improve the way scientists communicate with us ordinary folk. Why?

That scientists often don’t speak to the rest of us the way they would if we were standing there full of curiosity. They sometimes spray information at us without making that contact that I think is crucial. If a scientist doesn’t have someone next to them, drawing them out, they can easily go into lecture mode. There can be a lot of insider’s jargon. If they can’t make clear what their work involves, the public will resist advances. They won’t fund science. How are scientists going to get money from policy makers, if our leaders and legislators can’t understand what they do? I heard from one member of Congress that at a meeting with scientists, the members were passing notes to one another: “Do you know what this guy is saying?” “No, do you?” 

Agreed and exactly why we have the problem we do with climate change.

Of course, that's why I think more scientists should run for Congress! 

Global Warming's Six Americas

Climate Change Lies

With John Kerry's pointed remarks on climate change yesterday, it's important to note the various arguments that the Church of the Climate Denier uses all the time and illustrate how they are lying. Here is a complete list of their assertions by popularity which are all linked to the evidence that shows how they are completely false. Take note of how one can examine the data from a basic, intermediate or advanced point of view with many of the falsehoods.

So, the next time you encounter the adolescent climate skeptic who just can't stand the fact that liberals are correct about something, show the this list. Ask them to refute the evidence using the same scientific method used in each of the links. Remind that "No, you are!!" and a stomp down the hallway with a door slam are not logic based arguments.

The Real Story Behind Global Cooling

Right wing commenters on the inter webs love to do their little adolescent dance about how global cooling was all the rage back in the days when they didn't have man tits and could still see their penises. But Doug Struck's recent piece in Scientific American (you know, that magazine for scientists that has been published for nearly 170 years with past contributions from people like Albert Einstein) details exactly how the Church of the Climate Denier has lied about this theory.

For example, the author of the global cooling piece...

"When I wrote this story I did not see it as a blockbuster," Gwynne recalled. "It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking." And, revisionist lore aside, it was hardly a cover story. It was a one-page article on page 64. It was, Gwynne concedes, written with a bit of over-ventilated style that sometimes marked the magazine's prose: "There are ominous signs the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically..." the piece begins, and warns of a possible "dramatic decline in food production." 

"Newsweek being Newsweek, we might have pushed the envelope a little bit more than I would have wanted," Gwynne offered.

Oh really? I'm most shocked that they would leave out these details...

Conservatives Embrace Renewable Energy

Check out this recent piece in the Times.

One would not expect to see Barry Goldwater Jr., the very picture of modern conservatism and son of the 1964 Republican nominee for president, arguing passionately on behalf of solar energy customers. But there he was last fall, very publicly opposing a push by Arizona’s biggest utility to charge as much as $100 a month to people who put solar panels on their roofs. The utilities, backed by conservative business interests, argue that solar users who have lower power bills because of government subsidies are not paying their fair share to maintain the power grid. 

Mr. Goldwater and other advocates have struck back by calling the proposed fees a “solar tax,” and have pushed their message in ads on Fox News and the Drudge Report. Similar conflicts are going on in California and Colorado, with many more to come. And as the issue pops up, conservatives are even joining forces with environmental groups. In Georgia, a Tea Party activist and the Sierra Club formed a “Green Tea Coalition.”

Green Tea...love it! And it makes perfect sense when you think about it.

To Mr. Goldwater, the true conservative path lies elsewhere. “Utilities are working off of a business plan that’s 100 years old,” he said in an interview, “kind of like the typewriter and the bookstore.” On the website for his campaign, Tell Utilities Solar Won’t Be Killed, Mr. Goldwater, a former congressman, says, “Republicans want the freedom to make the best choice.” He says conservatives are the original environmentalists, especially in the West. “They came out here and fell in love with the land,” he said, and added that his father used to tell him, “There’s more decency in one pine tree than you’ll find in most people.”

Yes, conservatives are the original environmentalists. Let's help them get back to their roots!

Meanwhile, how about yet another severe drought in California? Weren't we warned about this 10 years ago?

The Keystone Report

The State Department has released its report on the Keystone Pipeline. There is no recommendation one or another on whether the pipeline should be built. It noted that even with some sort of governmental blockage on the line, it would accomplish very little to slow the expansion of Canada's vast oil sands. The report offered some solace to climate activists who want to stem the rise of oil sands output. It reaffirmed the idea that Canada's heavy crude reserves require more energy to produce and process - and therefore result in higher greenhouse gas emissions - than conventional oil fields.

So where does that leave us? In my view, still undecided. I don't see any convincing evidence that Keystone is going to do massive environmental harm, as activists claim. Yet I also don't see a negligible impact on the environment either. I guess I'm wondering why we are having this debate in the first place. Arguing about oil is like having a debate over the viability of the cassette tape versus Mp3s. We should be spending our time on bringing down the cost of renewable energy and making it as cheap as coal and oil. The entire debate over Keystone reminds of past arguments over the NEA (a loser for both sides who just want something stupid to club each other over the head with).

So, John Kerry is going spend the next three months consulting with government agencies when he should be doing other things like...oh, I don't know...an actual peace deal between Israel and Palestine.

Yay!