Wed - October 24, 2007

More White House Climate Censorship


I'm about ready to blow a gasket. Apparently the White House eviscerated a climate report from the CDC to a Senate committee, cutting 10 pages of details on how climate shift will exacerbate disease.

What the hell is going on? Here we sit with southern California burning, and the White House Office of Management and Budget sees fit to chop the teeth out of this report that attempts to warn against potential biological disasters as bad or worse as drought-caused wildfires.

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

This, on top of all the previous climate censorship successes perpetrated by the Bush Administration, is beyond the pale.


Posted at 07:08 PM      

Sat - September 22, 2007

Global Warming A Hoax?


Maybe I'll have to rethink my position now that I've seen this . . .





Posted at 11:31 AM      

Wed - August 1, 2007

The Myth of Ethanol


It may be that some form of ethanol as a biofuel will end up working--cellulosic ethanol, perhaps. But corn ethanol is the wrong way to go, and we need to stop it now.

(Via Pharyngula, quoting a Rolling Stone article):
Ethanol doesn't burn cleaner than gasoline, nor is it cheaper. Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption -- yet it consumes twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, causing the price of corn to double in the last two years and raising the threat of hunger in the Third World. And the increasing acreage devoted to corn for ethanol means less land for other staple crops, giving farmers in South America an incentive to carve fields out of tropical forests that help to cool the planet and stave off global warming.

So why bother? Because the whole point of corn ethanol is not to solve America's energy crisis, but to generate one of the great political boondoggles of our time. Corn is already the most subsidized crop in America, raking in a total of $51 billion in federal handouts between 1995 and 2005 -- twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as much as soybeans. Ethanol itself is propped up by hefty subsidies, including a fifty-one-cent-per-gallon tax allowance for refiners. And a study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies amount to as much as $1.38 per gallon -- about half of ethanol's wholesale market price.


Posted at 02:55 PM      

Mon - June 18, 2007

Do You Care More About Earthworms than Jobs?


You may have heard folks dismissive of environmental concerns express opinions along the lines of, "If it's the difference between a spotted owl and feeding my family, I choose my family."

I'm tempted to reply to such statements with talk about false choices, straw man arguments, and so on, but no. Forget all that. and forget for a moment whether we have moral obligations to protect the diversity of life on the planet. Let's think selfishly of just ourselves, our jobs, and our families.

The thing is, environmental quality has a direct impact on jobs, quality of life, the economy, and even the stability of government. If you care about a society's capacity to support itself, then you have to care about the environment. If you care about yourself and your own children, you have to care about the environment.

This sentiment is brilliantly illustrated in the following quote from Jared Diamond (author of many books, including Guns, Germs, and Steel, and most relevant to this quote, Collapse). (I heard Prof. Diamond make this remark on a recent Scientific American podcast).

"If one asked an academic ecologist to name the countries in the modern world that suffer from most severe problems of environmental damage and of over-population, and if this ecologist never read the newspapers and didn't know anything about modern political problems, the ecologist would say "Well that's a no-brainer, the countries today that have ecological and population [problems], there are Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, the Philippines, Indonesia, Solomon Islands."

Then you ask a politician who doesn't know, or a strategic planner who knows or cares nothing about ecological problems, what you see is the political tinderboxes of the modern world, the danger spots, and the politician or strategic planner would say "It's a no-brainer; Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, the Philippines, Indonesia, Solomon Islands", the same list."


Posted at 09:32 AM      

Fri - June 1, 2007

Time to Re-Up my Terrapass


About a year ago I bought carbon offsets for the cars in our household.

Looks like it is time to re-up at Terrapass.

Join me?


Posted at 09:24 AM      

Wed - May 2, 2007

CFLs and the "Wife Test"


This article sort of describes how things went, at first, in my own home. Fellow husbands, we are not alone!

Have you had a similar experience? Perhaps with reversed genders?

Thankfully, wine and communication eventually solved our CFL domestic issue. Every time an old bulb burns out, it is replaced by a CFL (except for a bunch I jumped the gun on!).

Fluorescent Bulbs Zapping Domestic Tranquility


Posted at 12:42 PM      

Tue - April 3, 2007

Supreme Court Puts Reason Ahead of Politics


Have you heard? Good news, friends.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized human induced climate change is a real, and pressing problem.

In a 5-4 vote, the Court said carbon dioxide and other global warming emissions are "pollutants" under the Clean Air Act.

In essence, the court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency ALREADY has the authority to start curbing carbon dioxide emissions.

This is merely a start, but it signals change is in the wind. No longer are we necessarliy resigned to the "global climicide" (to use the phrase coined by my friend Rob Heinsoo) the human race seemed blithely willing to allow.

In the words of the NRDC, this decision:

[...] obliterates the Bush Administration's leading excuse for doing nothing about global warming: namely, that it has no power to control carbon pollution. The Supreme Court has now ordered the EPA to stop relying on illegal excuses and to start getting serious about the problem of global warming pollution from new cars, SUVs and trucks.


Posted at 08:12 PM      

Wed - March 21, 2007

That's What They've Got?


Rhetorical tricks, logical fallacies, and arguments designed to distract; that's what climate skeptics have to offer by way of holding up their side of the debate.

When I used to debate in high school, teams that didn't have any actual evidence to counteract a particular case would resort to sneaky rhetorical tricks such as these, hoping to talk fast enough to confuse the judges. Sometimes it worked in qualifying rounds, but never did I see such tricks win the day in a state or national tournament.

The same thing holds true in this larger debate. Just because many climate-change deniers talk a good game and have slick talking points (and have really deep pockets to get their distortions distributed as widely as possible) doesn't make them right.

In fact, these tactics reveal the opposite. Climate-change deniers have no foundation of fact from which to argue.


Posted at 08:01 PM      

Fri - March 9, 2007

Soviet-Style Directive From Bush On Polar Bears


Internal memorandums circulated in the Alaskan division of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service appear to require government biologists or other employees traveling in countries around the Arctic not to discuss climate change, polar bears or sea ice if they are not designated to do so. Read the article here.

I wonder how people who still support this administration can continually to hear news similar to that described above, yet also continue to believe this same administration is dedicated to commonly held American ideals of freedom of thought, expression, and speech.


Posted at 09:57 AM      

Wed - January 31, 2007

Predicted Crises Occur If Warnings Unheeded


Despite warnings that a waste disposal disaster waited, as surely as night follows day, if Athens didn't make changes... Athens didn't change. And now Athens is in the grip of a garbage disaster, with mountains of refuse filling the streets.

Reminds me of how everything that happened in New Orleans was predicted years ahead of time, even published so everyone could read it in a Scientific American article called Drowning New Orleans. No one did anything about the prediction, and disaster followed.

For the past several years, all credible sources are warning us that global climate change is real and will be at least as bad as predicted. At the same time, non-credible sources are spending millions to convince average people the opposite is true.

The average person doesn't necessarily realize that the ice sheet thickening at Antarctica's center (while it melts at the edges) is not counter-evidence to the prediction of global warming--it is actually more evidence FOR global climate change (because the excess moisture in the air from the melting at the edges means that it is more likely to snow at the center of the sheet). They don't realize that freak cold snaps do not in a weekend disprove that last fifty years of trending data. To the contrary, freak weather occurrences are yet further predictions FOR global climate change wrought by human hands.

In fact, if you want to see this most dire of predicted crises explained in a thorough, reasonable, and well-intentioned manner, I actually urge you to watch An Inconvenient Truth if you haven't already.

Can we heed this prediction, and avoid catastrophe? I like to think so.


Posted at 09:57 AM      

Thu - January 11, 2007

Crazy On My Doorstep


After a parent, brain-addled with fundamentalist dogma, complained about Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," a school district a few miles from my house banned it. The parent, one Frosty Hardison, said, "The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. ... The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."

Holy crap, it is shocking to see this sort of idiocy so geographically close. I guess Frosty and her hip megachurch have been getting flyers from one of the interest groups paid by Exxon to lie about global warming.

UPDATE: The local paper, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, skewers the school board:




Posted at 07:01 PM      

Thu - January 4, 2007

ExxonMobil Paid to Mislead Public


No big surprise, I suppose, but it is nice to see this sort of thing get out into the public consciousness a little more. Full MSN article here.

WASHINGTON (AP) - ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in an effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday. More...


Posted at 09:55 AM      

Tue - September 26, 2006

$3,000,000,000 vs. Climate Change




As has been mentioned earlier, fantastic business opportunities are available for those willing to invest in renewable energy:

-http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/000438.html

(And, heck, a cool picture of Branson and Clinton plotting their anti-global warming schemes.)


Posted at 09:05 AM      

Wed - September 20, 2006

How to Alter Reality


The administration claims it wasn't telling scientists what to say about climate change; e-mails obtained by Salon prove otherwise.

-http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/19/noaa/index_np.html


Posted at 11:02 AM      

Fri - July 21, 2006

Carbon Allowance For Each Citizen


As record temperatures stretch across Washington state today with heat advisories extending through the weekend, it occurs to me that, just perhaps, schemes such as the carbon allowance advanced by Britain's Secretary of State for the Environment may actually have some chance of becoming reality.

At least, in Britain.

The cool thing about the carbon allowance scheme is that those who use less carbon can sell their unused allowance to a central 'carbon bank' for a profit. Those who require a higher carbon allowance could purchase those from the same 'bank.'

But then, when I consider collective human nature (easily led) and human-run governments (easily corrupted), it occurs to me we'll need our noses rubbed far more vociferously in the doo--doo before we'd actually adopt something that would require people to change their behavior in order to achieve an outcome that can't be immediately and tangibly grasped. Or am I too cynical? I hope so. After all, people accepted rationing during WWII--the threat of global degradation is at least as important.

-http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/000336.html


Posted at 11:10 AM      









©