Tag Archives: Climate change

environmental news

Christie on climate change: It’s real

What gives with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie? Doesn’t he want to be the Republican nominee for president in 2016?

He’s traipsing through New Hampshire saying some things that are sure to fire up the GOP base against a potential Christie presidential candidacy.

He’s saying, well, that climate change cannot be denied and, what’s more, that human beings are a contributing factor to the world’s changing climate.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/241495-chris-christie-global-warming-is-real

The planet is heating up, Christie says, and we need to get busy trying to minimize the impact that human activity has on this phenomenon.

Look, his own state was hammered in October 2012 by Superstorm/Hurricane Sandy, which weather experts said was such an anomaly that they blamed climate change on that event when it happened. It wiped out coastal communities in New York and New Jersey.

Christie has changed his tune on climate change. He once opposed regional efforts to cut greenhouse gases. Then he vowed to eliminate coal-fired power plants from his state.

Yes, this climate change issue has sparked vigorous debate. Those who deny it’s happening — including influential U.S. senators, such as Republican Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma — push back by saying that science hasn’t  yet concluded that human beings are a factor in climate change … if it’s actually occurring.

Others, though, say science is on their side, that temperatures are rising, ice caps are melting, weather patterns are changing and that human beings play a significant role — through deforestation and carbon emissions — in creating those changes.

Now we can welcome a potential leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

Thanks, Gov. Christie, for changing your mind.

 

environmental news

Happy Earth Day, everyone!

So help me, I wish Earth Day was a bigger deal than it has become.

For a whole day — as if that’s enough time to honor the only planet we have — we’re supposed to put Earth on the top of our mind’s awareness.

Homepage

This is the 45th annual Earth Day. Many communities around the world are going to have public events to commemorate the day. That’s fine. I welcome all the attention that will be paid to Earth until the sun comes up tomorrow.

Given that it was created 45 years ago, that means Earth Day began during the Nixon administration. I doubt President Nixon really paid a lot of personal attention to the condition of the planet, but I certainly applaud that it was during his years in the White House that the Environmental Protection Agency was created.

In the decades since Earth Day’s creation, though, it has become something of a political flashpoint.

Some of us believe the planet is in peril. Our climate is changing and yet humankind keeps doing things to the planet that exacerbate the change that’s occurring. Deforestation is one thing. Spewing of carbon-based emissions is another. Some of say we need to do a better job of protecting our planet — or else face the consequences, which are as grim as it gets. Hey, we have nowhere else to live — for the time being, at least.

Others of us say there’s little we can do. Climate change? It’s part of Earth’s ecological cycle. We need to accept the inevitable and not seek to destroy our industrial base to chase after a cause that is far too big for mere human beings to tackle.

I won’t accept the hard-core climate change deniers’ thesis.

For the time being, I am at least grateful that the world sets aside a day to honor the good Planet Earth.

We ought to do it every day of every year.

 

national news, political news

'91 percent chance' Graham will run

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Sunday today there’s a “91 percent chance” he’s going to run for the Republican presidential nomination next year.

Ninety-one percent chance. Not 90. Not 95. The odds are now at 91 percent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/19/lindsey-graham-president-2016_n_7095360.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

Surely I’m not the only American wondering where the senator came up with 91 percent.

It’s usual for politicians to round these numbers off to the nearest zero or to the nearest 5. Isn’t that how it goes?

Sen. Graham, an Air Force reservist and lawyer when he’s not legislating in the U.S. Senate, must be from some school that suggests you should be as precise as possible when using numbers of any stripe.

I guess that includes numbers that set hypothetical odds on whether you’re running for president.

There’s also a 91 percent chance, therefore, that he’ll have to answer to critics within his own party that he’s too, um, “moderate” to suit their taste. He’s declared climate change to be the real thing and actually favors comprehensive immigration reform, according to the Huffington Post.

This might be the deal breaker among the hard-core GOP base: He’s actually endorsing some of President Obama’s Cabinet nominees and judicial appointees.

The chances of the hard right wing of his party forgiving him for those views? Zero.

 

national news, political news

Al Gore for president?

Ezra Klein is a bright young man. He’s a frequent TV news talk show guest and once contributed essays to the Washington Post.

He now writes for Vox — and he’s put forward a patently absurd, but still interesting idea: Al Gore should run for president of the United States.

Yeah, that Al Gore. The former two-term vice president who collected more popular votes than Texas Gov. George W. Bush in 2000, only to lose the presidency when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to stop counting the ballots in Florida, which went to Bush and gave him the presidency.

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/16/8220537/al-gore-president-2016

What commends Gore to make the race? According to Klein, he has more unique ideas on how to govern than any of the other so-called alternatives to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Klein agrees with Gore that climate change is an international concern. He thinks Gore is credible on the issue and can make the case eloquently using the White House as his bully pulpit.

Does he have drawbacks? Oh sure.

Klein writes: “The problem with a Gore candidacy, to be blunt, is Gore. He can be a wooden candidate. His relationship with the press is challenging, to say the least. He is an aging politician in a country that loves new faces. His finances are complicated, and he made an insane sum of money by selling his cable network to Al Jazeera. His divorce from Tipper Gore means his personal life isn’t the storybook it once was. He is loathed by conservatives, who find his environmentalism to be rank hypocrisy from a jet-setting, Davos-attending mansion dweller — as politically polarized as concern over climate change already is, Gore could polarize it yet further.”

Klein’s essay attached to this blog post is worth your time.

I’m hoping Al Gore reads it and gives the notion Klein puts forth some thought.

 

environmental news

Snowball stirs climate change debate

1 Comment

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe’s snowball stunt has done something quite useful.

It has sparked another round of debate over whether Earth’s climate is changing.

The Oklahoma Republican sought to debunk the climate change theorists when he brought the snowball to the Senate floor this week. It’s really cold in Washington, D.C., the chairman said. So the snowball is a symbol of what he believes, which is that climate change is a load of crap.

http://time.com/3725994/inhofe-snowball-climate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Fscienceandhealth+%28TIME%3A+Top+Science+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+UK

Actually, it’s not.

As the brief essay attached to this post notes, although the D.C. temperature was quite cold, that very day it was swelteringly hot in Opa Loca, Fla. — 87 degrees hot, as a matter of fact.

Does the temperature in Opa Loca on one day mean that Earth’s climate is changing? Not any more than the snowball in D.C. disproves it.

But the debate is a good one.

Science has produced mountains of evidence to suggest that the planet is getting warmer. Yet we keep hearing deniers suggest that the planet is getting colder. The polar ice caps are melting. No, wait! They’re getting larger.

The climate is changing because of human activity, scientists have concluded. Others say the climate change is part of an epochal cycle.

Here’s a notion worth considering. What if we actually did reduce carbon emissions significantly by requiring industrial plant managers to do a better job of controlling what they’re spewing into the atmosphere? How about if Third World governments cracked down on those who are obliterating forests and reducing the level of oxygen being pumped into the atmosphere to counteract the carbon dioxide that contributes to the carbon levels? What if we did all we could do to make the air cleaner with less carbon?

Wouldn’t that sustain the planet longer? Wouldn’t all that work slow the deterioration of our resources, if not reverse it?

Chairman Inhofe can deny the existence of climate change. But a cold day in D.C. doesn’t prove his point.

I am not going to buy into the notion that doing nothing about any of this is good for the only planet we have.

 

national news

Look at global picture, Sen. Inhofe

It was just a matter of time before someone would do this.

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., brought a snowball to the Senate floor Thursday to prove, by golly, that climate change is a hoax.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/234026-sen-inhofe-throws-snowball-to-disprove-climate-change

Inhofe chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and he also is one of the Senate’s leading deniers on climate change/global warming. He just will not tolerate the notion that climate change might be caused by carbon emissions thrown into the air by manmade sources — you know, coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, petrochemical plants, deforestation, motor vehicle exhaust … those kinds of things.

So he pulled a snowball out of a bag and noted how “unseasonable” the temperature is outside the Senate chamber, meaning it’s really cold out there.

I just want to remind the senator that conditions outdoors at any particular time doesn’t prove a single thing about this issue. He knows that, of course, but he refuses to look at the big picture when it might go against whatever point he seeks to make.

My friends on the right keep insisting that climate change is a concoction brewed by leftist influences out to destroy American industry. Scientific data, though, suggest that the planet’s climate is changing. It’s getting warmer. The only debating point left is over whether it’s manmade or part of some ecological cycle that Earth experiences every few million years.

Whatever, Chairman Inhofe should cease playing silly snowball games.

Yes, it’s cold in the Texas Tundra, too, Sen. Inhofe. It’s snowing as I write these words. The temperature is in the low teens.

Is it prudent to use current weather conditions to pass judgment on what science has been tracking over many years? It’s wiser to look at the really big picture.

 

 

environmental news

Correction noted on climate change blog

This post will be brief. It’s something I don’t normally do, but I thought I’d make an exception.

I’ve made a correction to the previous blog I posted this morning about climate change. I made an error in stating the increase in Earth’s temperature in 2014. I erroneously typed that it increased .7 degrees; the actual temp increase, according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, was .07 degrees. Quite a difference. Earth didn’t heat up quite so dramatically, but it did continue its warming trend.

It was brought to my attention by a former colleague with whom I’ve had disagreements over a number of issues. Climate change happens to one of them, I reckon. He reminded me: “Best to be right when you’re being smug.”

Correction noted.

 

 

environmental news

News flash: Earth sets temp record once again

1 Comment

This just in: Planet Earth just set yet another record for temperatures around the globe during a calendar year.

2014 was 0.07 degrees hotter than the previous record year, says the National Climatic Data Center.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/16/world/earth-hottest-year/index.html?

Will that put the kibosh on the climate-change deniers? Do not even bet on that. Not for a minute.

They’ll suggest that the scientists at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration are much of politically driven zealots whose aim is to destroy the fossil fuel industry.

They likely might contend that the White House cooked up the numbers just to advance their agenda aimed at developing those nasty clean-energy alternatives. You know, those wind farms and solar panels that are harvesting the wind and the sun and producing actual energy to heat and cool our homes.

Weather forecasters began keeping worldwide temperatures in 1880. The year just past set a record. Who or what is responsible? Scientists say it’s humans. Other scientists it’s all part of Earth’s ecological cycle which repeats itself about, oh, every other millennia.

Let’s be mindful, though, of an important factor.

No matter the cause, billions of human beings are going to be affected by the changes occurring in our climate. Storms are getting more severe. Ice caps are receding. Rainy regions are getting less rain. Sea levels are rising.

And the world’s 7 billion souls — and counting — are standing right in the path of Mother Nature’s infinite power.

I don’t know about you, but I worry for Planet Earth.

 

environmental news

Climate change not a local matter?

My hometown newspaper, the (Portland) Oregonian has just announced that climate change won’t be on its agenda of important issues on which to comment in 2015.

I have a single initial response: Wow!

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/12/why_climate_change_will_not_be.html

The editorial, while written well — as always — seems to miss a fundamental point about climate change as it affects a coastal state, such as Oregon.

The issue is a local one that well could impact many thousands of people living in that state.

The editorial, in part, states: “Our editorials, like those of other news organizations, reflect a set of values with which regular readers are surely familiar. However, ideology has nothing to do with the scarcity of climate-change editorials. We seldom discuss climate change, rather, because we focus almost exclusively on state and local matters. Weighing the costs and benefits of climate-change policy is best done at the federal and international levels.”

” … we focus almost exclusively on state and local matters,” the editorial states.

Roll that one around for a moment.

Climate change, as I understand, is having an impact at many levels all around the world. One of those levels — pardon the pun — is the rising sea level of the oceans and the affect it will have on coastal regions.

Oregon has about 300-plus miles of coastline facing the Pacific Ocean. Its coastal region would seem to be as vulnerable to the shifting tides, not to mention the intense weather changes that many scientists attribute to climate change. They’re as vulnerable to these forces as, say, Texas, another significant coastal state.

The Oregonian sought input from its readers on the issues they thought the paper should emphasize. Those who responded didn’t think much of the climate change crisis. The Oregonian, therefore, responded to those who answered their question.

Does that represent a complete, fair and comprehensive view of the paper’s entire readership? I rather doubt it.

Still, my hometown paper — which has been honored with Pulitzer prizes in recent years for its editorial leadership — has chosen to skip what I believe will become one of that region’s primary issues in the coming decades.

Good luck, home folks.

 

environmental news

Less ice, more water, more danger

I keep wondering when the climate-change deniers are going to get the message: Earth’s climate is changing and the consequences of that change are potentially catastrophic.

A new report suggests that the ice in Antarctica not only is melting, but its rate of melt is accelerating. When the ice melts, it creates lots and lots of water. What happens, then, to the coastal communities that sit next to our oceans?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/12/03/global_warming_antarctica_is_losing_more_than_6_billion_tons_of_ice_annually.html

It’s science. It’s backed up with photographic evidence. It’s on the link attached to this blog post.

Yet some American politicians — egged on by extremists — keep suggesting that climate change is some kind of hoax. It’s a plot to “destroy the oil industry.” It’s a political gimmick.

Come on!

The debate shouldn’t be about whether Earth’s climate is changing. It should be about its cause.

I continue to believe that humankind has played a large role in the changing climate.

Those greenhouse gases do have an impact. The deforestation of much of the planet’s earth surface has an impact.

The effect of that activity can be seen through satellite pictures.

It’s science, man!