Archive

Posts Tagged ‘heat’

Top Australian climate scientist: Heat wave ‘encroaching on entirely new territory’

January 12th, 2013 admin No comments

Smoke near Cooma, Australia, Jan. 8.
New South Wales Rural Fire Service
Smoke near Cooma, Australia, Jan. 8.

Australia’s top government-appointed climate commissioner says this week’s heat wave is occurring amid record-breaking weather around the world. “This has been a landmark event for me,” professor Tim Flannery told Climate Desk from his home in Melbourne. “When you start breaking records, and you do it consistently, and you see it over and over again, that is a good indication there’s a shift underway — this is not just within the normal variation of things.”

Flannery is perhaps best known in the U.S. for his 2005 book The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change; down under, he was named Australian of the Year in 2007, and appointed chief climate commissioner in 2011 by the current Labor government, which tasked him with communicating climate science to the Australian public (a government-funded job that may well sound unimaginable to American readers).

Tim Flannery.
University of Western Sydney Comm Arts Students
Tim Flannery.

Flannery says the harsh weather is a sign of things to come: “What we’ve seen is the bell curve shift to the hot end. The number of very hot days is increasing quite dramatically. But we’re also encroaching on entirely new territory.”

That new territory involves record-breaking temperatures. The number of consecutive days where the national average maximum temperature topped 102.2 degrees F (39 degrees C) was broken in the last week, almost doubling the previous record set in 1973. There are now new first- and third-place winners for highest temperatures on Australia’s books, too. The number of record high temperatures has outstripped the number of record low temperatures at a 3-to-1 ratio over the last decade, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

Several fires are still burning in Tasmania, Australia’s lush island state, where the crisis began last week. The cost of the destruction of 200 buildings there is pegged at $52.7 million, according to The Australian newspaper. Luckily — perhaps shockingly given the extent of damage — lives were spared.

Statewide total fire bans remain in force across the weekend in Australia’s most populous state, New South Wales (NSW), where at last count more than 95 fires are still burning, with 18 out of control. NSW Rural Fire Service Deputy Commissioner Rob Rogers told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that new fires on Saturday might be “beyond the ability for fire services to suppress.”

And don’t think there’s any rest from wild weather. Not content which just record-breaking heat, the skies are now hurling Narelle — a Category 4 severe tropical storm comparable to a strong Category 3 hurricane — at the Northwest of the vast continent. Communities living along a coastline roughly as long as the stretch from New York to North Carolina are bracing for gale-force winds and heavy rains.

“There is no doubt,” Flannery said, “that climate change is playing a significant role in this. If this was just one record-breaking event you might write it off as a statistical anomaly. But that’s not what we’re seeing. We’re seeing records falling around the world.”

Flannery told Climate Desk the Australian government has confirmed he will hold his seat for the next two years, but it might not play out that way. The conservative opposition party is likely to erode the Climate Commission if elected, something that will be decided by a deeply divided electorate towards the end of this year. The election promises to be fought over the government’s carbon tax. Opposition leader Tony Abbott famously made a “blood pledge” to repeal the tax, which will lead to a carbon trading scheme.

This story was produced by Mother Jones as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Filed under: Article, Climate & Energy

View full post on Grist

The hunger wars in our future: Heat, drought, rising food costs, and global unrest

August 10th, 2012 admin No comments

The mass unrest of the Arab Spring was triggered in part by rising food prices. In Algeria (above), the government slashed food prices in response to protests. (Photo by Magharebia.)

The Great Drought of 2012 has yet to come to an end, but we already know that its consequences will be severe. With more than one-half of America’s counties designated as drought disaster areas, the 2012 harvest of corn, soybeans, and other food staples is guaranteed to fall far short of predictions. This, in turn, will boost food prices domestically and abroad, causing increased misery for farmers and low-income Americans and far greater hardship for poor people in countries that rely on imported U.S. grains.

This, however, is just the beginning of the likely consequences: If history is any guide, rising food prices of this sort will also lead to widespread social unrest and violent conflict.

Food — affordable food — is essential to human survival and well-being. Take that away, and people become anxious, desperate, and angry. In the United States, food represents only about 13 percent of the average household budget, a relatively small share, so a boost in food prices in 2013 will probably not prove overly taxing for most middle- and upper-income families. It could, however, produce considerable hardship for poor and unemployed Americans with limited resources. “You are talking about a real bite out of family budgets,” commented Ernie Gross, an agricultural economist at Omaha’s Creighton University. This could add to the discontent already evident in depressed and high-unemployment areas, perhaps prompting an intensified backlash against incumbent politicians and other forms of dissent and unrest.

It is in the international arena, however, that the Great Drought is likely to have its most devastating effects. Because so many nations depend on grain imports from the U.S. to supplement their own harvests, and because intense drought and floods are damaging crops elsewhere as well, food supplies are expected to shrink and prices to rise across the planet. “What happens to the U.S. supply has immense impact around the world,” says Robert Thompson, a food expert at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. As the crops most affected by the drought, corn and soybeans, disappear from world markets, he noted, the price of all grains, including wheat, is likely to soar, causing immense hardship to those who already have trouble affording enough food to feed their families.

The Hunger Games, 2007-2011

What happens next is, of course, impossible to predict, but if the recent past is any guide, it could turn ugly. In 2007 to 2008, when rice, corn, and wheat experienced prices hikes of 100 percent or more, sharply higher prices — especially for bread — sparked “food riots” in more than two dozen countries, including Bangladesh, Cameroon, Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia, Senegal, and Yemen. In Haiti, the rioting became so violent and public confidence in the government’s ability to address the problem dropped so precipitously that the Haitian Senate voted to oust the country’s prime minister, Jacques-Édouard Alexis. In other countries, angry protestors clashed with army and police forces, leaving scores dead.

Those price increases of 2007 to 2008 were largely attributed to the soaring cost of oil, which made food production more expensive. (Oil’s use is widespread in farming operations, irrigation, food delivery, and pesticide manufacture.) At the same time, increasing amounts of cropland worldwide were being diverted from food crops to the cultivation of plants used in making biofuels.

The next price spike, in 2010 to 2011, was, however, closely associated with climate change. An intense drought gripped much of eastern Russia during the summer of 2010, reducing the wheat harvest in that breadbasket region by one-fifth and prompting Moscow to ban all wheat exports. Drought also hurt China’s grain harvest, while intense flooding destroyed much of Australia’s wheat crop. Together with other extreme-weather-related effects, these disasters sent wheat prices soaring by more than 50 percent and the price of most food staples by 32 percent.

Once again, a surge in food prices resulted in widespread social unrest, this time concentrated in North Africa and the Middle East. The earliest protests arose over the cost of staples in Algeria and then Tunisia, where — no coincidence — the precipitating event was a young food vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, setting himself on fire to protest government harassment. Anger over rising food and fuel prices combined with long-simmering resentments about government repression and corruption sparked what became known as the Arab Spring. The rising cost of basic staples, especially a loaf of bread, was also a cause of unrest in Egypt, Jordan, and Sudan. Other factors, notably anger at entrenched autocratic regimes, may have proved more powerful in those places, but as the author of Tropic of Chaos, Christian Parenti, wrote, “The initial trouble was traceable, at least in part, to the price of that loaf of bread.”

As for the current drought, analysts are already warning of instability in Africa, where corn is a major staple, and of increased popular unrest in China, where food prices are expected to rise at a time of growing hardship for that country’s vast pool of low-income, migratory workers and poor peasants. Higher food prices in the U.S. and China could also lead to reduced consumer spending on other goods, further contributing to the slowdown in the global economy and producing yet more worldwide misery, with unpredictable social consequences.

The Hunger Games, 2012-?

If this was just one bad harvest, occurring in only one country, the world would undoubtedly absorb the ensuing hardship and expect to bounce back in the years to come. Unfortunately, it’s becoming evident that the Great Drought of 2012 is not a one-off event in a single heartland nation, but rather an inevitable consequence of global warming which is only going to intensify. As a result, we can expect not just more bad years of extreme heat, but worse years, hotter and more often, and not just in the United States, but globally for the indefinite future.

Until recently, most scientists were reluctant to blame particular storms or droughts on global warming. Now, however, a growing number of scientists believe that such links can be demonstrated in certain cases. In one recent study focused on extreme weather events in 2011, for instance, climate specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Great Britain’s National Weather Service concluded that human-induced climate change has made intense heat waves of the kind experienced in Texas in 2011 more likely than ever before. Published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, it reported that global warming had ensured that the incidence of that Texas heat wave was 20 times more likely than it would have been in 1960; similarly, abnormally warm temperatures like those experienced in Britain last November were said to be 62 times as likely because of global warming.

It is still too early to apply the methodology used by these scientists to calculating the effect of global warming on the heat waves of 2012, which are proving to be far more severe, but we can assume the level of correlation will be high. And what can we expect in the future, as the warming gains momentum?

When we think about climate change (if we think about it at all), we envision rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, freakish storms, hellish wildfires, and rising sea levels. Among other things, this will result in damaged infrastructure and diminished food supplies. These are, of course, manifestations of warming in the physical world, not the social world we all inhabit and rely on for so many aspects of our daily well-being and survival. The purely physical effects of climate change will, no doubt, prove catastrophic. But the social effects, including, somewhere down the line, food riots, mass starvation, state collapse, mass migrations, and conflicts of every sort, up to and including full-scale war, could prove even more disruptive and deadly.

In her immensely successful young-adult novel The Hunger Games (and in the movie that followed), Suzanne Collins riveted millions with a portrait of a dystopian, resource-scarce, post-apocalyptic future where once-rebellious “districts” in an impoverished North America must supply two teenagers each year for a series of televised gladiatorial games that end in death for all but one of the youthful contestants. These “hunger games” are intended as recompense for the damage inflicted on the victorious capital of Panem by the rebellious districts during an insurrection. Without specifically mentioning global warming, Collins makes it clear that climate change was significantly responsible for the hunger that shadows the North American continent in this future era. Hence, as the gladiatorial contestants are about to be selected, the mayor of District 12’s principal city describes “the disasters, the droughts, the storms, the fires, the encroaching seas that swallowed up so much of the land [and] the brutal war for what little sustenance remained.”

In this, Collins was prescient, even if her specific vision of the violence on which such a world might be organized is fantasy. While we may never see her version of those hunger games, do not doubt that some version of them will come into existence — that, in fact, hunger wars of many sorts will fill our future. These could include any combination or permutation of the deadly riots that led to the 2008 collapse of Haiti’s government, the pitched battles between massed protesters and security forces that engulfed parts of Cairo as the Arab Spring developed, the ethnic struggles over disputed croplands and water sources that have made Darfur a recurring headline of horror in our world, or the inequitable distribution of agricultural land that continues to fuel the insurgency of the Maoist-inspired Naxalites of India.

Combine such conflicts with another likelihood: that persistent drought and hunger will force millions of people to abandon their traditional lands and flee to the squalor of shantytowns and expanding slums surrounding large cities, sparking hostility from those already living there. One such eruption, with grisly results, occurred in Johannesburg’s shantytowns in 2008 when desperately poor and hungry migrants from Malawi and Zimbabwe were set upon, beaten, and in some cases burned to death by poor South Africans. One terrified Zimbabwean, cowering in a police station from the raging mobs, said she fled her country because “there is no work and no food.” And count on something else: Millions more in the coming decades, pressed by disasters ranging from drought and flood to rising sea levels, will try to migrate to other countries, provoking even greater hostility. And that hardly begins to exhaust the possibilities that lie in our hunger-games future.

At this point, the focus is understandably on the immediate consequences of the still ongoing Great Drought: dying crops, shrunken harvests, and rising food prices. But keep an eye out for the social and political effects that undoubtedly won’t begin to show up here or globally until later this year or 2013.  Better than any academic study, these will offer us a hint of what we can expect in the coming decades from a hunger-games world of rising temperatures, persistent droughts, recurring food shortages, and billions of famished, desperate people.

Filed under: Article, Climate & Energy, Politics

View full post on Grist

Heat brings U.S. climate debate to new boil

July 24th, 2012 admin No comments

Hot or not? McKibben and the Bieb, together at last.

In North America this summer, drought, fire, and heat are putting climate back in the headlines — if not, yet, in the election-year political debate. At such moments, it’s tempting for anyone who’s been talking about the issue all along to pile on with the “see what we mean?”s and “we told you so”s. But it’s far more important to use the moment to catalyze understanding and action.

Two articles this weekend set the moment’s choices in deep relief. On the cover of Rolling Stone, sharing display space with Justin Bieber’s come-hither pout and Eraserhead ‘do, Bill McKibben sketches an arrestingly urgent map of our plight, using three numbers to explain why the fate of the planet comes down to fossil-fuel company finances. In the Sunday New York Times, David Leonhardt, the paper’s Washington bureau chief, finds a “ray of hope on climate change” in global clean-energy trends.

Let’s start with Leonhardt. He tells us, “The world’s largest economies may now be in the process of creating a climate-change response that does not depend on the politically painful process of raising the price of dirty energy.” Solar and wind investments are largely paying off; natural gas development, however controversial, has brought prices down for a fossil fuel that puts less carbon into the atmosphere than coal.

All this means we’re already a lot closer to clean-energy nirvana than most people think — and if government would keep funding research and deployment, we could get there.

“Carbon pricing is going to have an uphill climb in the U.S. for the foreseeable future,” says Robert N. Stavins, a Harvard economist who is a leading advocate for such pricing, “so it does make sense to think about other things.”

Those others things, in the simplest terms, are policies intended to help find a breakthrough technology that can power the economy without heating the planet. “Our best hope,” says Benjamin H. Strauss, a scientist who is the chief operating officer of Climate Central, a research group, “is some kind of disruptive technology that takes off on its own, the way the Internet and the fax took off.”

Leonhardt is a pragmatist who is smart enough to hedge his optimism with all the usual disclaimers. Even so, the reader’s takeaway is relief: We don’t have to wait for Congress to break its Beltway deadlock and put some sort of price tag on carbon. We don’t have to tighten our belts and lay off the gasoline. If we just sit back and let good old human ingenuity work its magic, we can dodge the climate bullet, and enjoy our barbecues this summer without that gnawing fear that we may be the barbecue. Whew!

Cue entrance music — Radiohead, impassioned, heartbreaking — for Bill McKibben. (He is, as we regularly disclose here, a longtime Grist board member and, also, a friend.) His Rolling Stone piece walks us through a sequence of numbers that will put you right back off your charcoal-grilled burger.

Figure number one is two degrees C (3.6 degrees F), the level of warming that pretty much everyone agrees we can’t go beyond without some pretty awful consequences — “the bottomest of bottom lines.”

Figure number two is 565 gigatons — the amount of additional carbon dioxide scientists estimate we can add to the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below the two-degrees level.

The third and most important number is 2795 gigatons — the amount of carbon “already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies.”

That third number keeps McKibben awake at night, and should have us all on edge.

Think of two degrees Celsius as the legal drinking limit – equivalent to the 0.08 blood-alcohol level below which you might get away with driving home. The 565 gigatons is how many drinks you could have and still stay below that limit – the six beers, say, you might consume in an evening. And the 2,795 gigatons? That’s the three 12-packs the fossil-fuel industry has on the table, already opened and ready to pour.

We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We’d have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate…

Not burning that fuel would cost the fossil-fuel industry trillions of dollars.

If you paid attention to the scientists and kept 80 percent of it underground, you’d be writing off $20 trillion in assets. The numbers aren’t exact, of course, but that carbon bubble makes the housing bubble look small by comparison. It won’t necessarily burst – we might well burn all that carbon, in which case investors will do fine. But if we do, the planet will crater. You can have a healthy fossil-fuel balance sheet, or a relatively healthy planet – but now that we know the numbers, it looks like you can’t have both. Do the math: 2,795 is five times 565. That’s how the story ends.

These numbers frame our climate choices much more starkly than we’re accustomed to. They’re not about conservation or research; they’re about asset valuation and risk management. If we’re going to bend the climate-change curve, the fossil-fuel industry is going to take one hell of a multi-trillion- dollar haircut. So it will push back against this prospect for all it’s worth.

Now, to be sure, these companies are going to pay that price no matter what: Either they’ll pay it later, when the disastrous effects of irreversible climate change finally persuade the last denier ostriches that we’re in trouble, or they’ll pay it sooner, when we might have an opportunity to mitigate the worst impact of such change.

Since they’re corporations, and will always protect next quarter’s earnings ahead of longer-term concerns, they’ll do everything they can to postpone this reckoning. Our job, McKibben says, is to speed it up — to make the oil companies feel this pain now. The sooner the price on their fuel stockpiles reflects the actual cost to the planet and the human race of burning that fuel, the better our chances. While a global energy-market crash is no fun to contemplate, it’s also inevitable — and we might want to pay that price sooner, before the crash also engulfs the civilization we call home.

Alone among businesses, the fossil-fuel industry is allowed to dump its main waste, carbon dioxide, for free. Nobody else gets that break — if you own a restaurant, you have to pay someone to cart away your trash, since piling it in the street would breed rats. But the fossil-fuel industry is different, and for sound historical reasons: Until a quarter-century ago, almost no one knew that CO2 was dangerous. But now that we understand that carbon is heating the planet and acidifying the oceans, its price becomes the central issue…

The fight, in the end, is about whether the industry will succeed in its fight to keep its special pollution break alive past the point of climate catastrophe, or whether, in the economists’ parlance, we’ll make them internalize those externalities.

The only efforts that will fully engage the attention of these corporations are those that affect their stock prices. We can’t change the energy habits of the globe overnight, but markets are notoriously fickle and easily spooked, and if enough people make enough noise suggesting that the days of carbon’s free ride are numbered, energy companies might start feeling the market-price pain now. One prospect McKibben raises is a campus divestiture movement a la the anti-apartheid protests of the 1980s, using the consciences and pocketbooks of universities driven by the passion of their students.

So there you have it: a largely optimistic view from the New York Times’ economics correspondent, suggesting we may already be on the road to an unfolding climate solution without facing a political or economic reckoning; and a tougher call to arms from McKibben, showing why that reckoning is inevitable, the quicker the better. It’s “You May Already Have Won!” vs. “We have only just begun to fight.”

Leonhardt’s stance is more comforting. McKibben’s is more credible — and more inspiring.

Filed under: Climate & Energy

View full post on Grist

L.A. braces for hellish heat waves while world leaders diddle

July 12th, 2012 admin No comments

Is it me, or is it getting hot in here?

Two summers ago, the National Weather Service’s thermometer in downtown Los Angeles cracked 113 degrees F for the first time ever. Then it broke, leaving weather geeks to wonder if the city’s record high was actually even hotter than their tools were able to handle.

Better fix the thermometer, L.A. There’s more record heat on the way. A new study conducted by researchers at UCLA finds that climate change will drive up average temperatures in the City of Angels by an average of 4 to 5 degrees F by midcentury. And that’s just an average — some days, global warming will no doubt push the mercury even higher.

Another new report, from the National Research Council, predicts that sea level will rise up to a foot along the California coast in 20 years, and could top 5 feet by the end of the century. Again, these are averages. When the big storms roll in, folks in Malibu can kiss their beachfront mansions goodbye.

Los Angeles is one of many cities around the country that have been moving aggressively to reduce their contributions to climate change. Since his election in 2005, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has instated a massive climate action plan, retrofitting street lights with energy-efficient LEDs, enacting some of the nation’s strictest green building standards, and starting work on an ambitious mass transit expansion in a city that is famously enamored of the automobile.

And now, as national and international governments dick around, L.A. is among a group of cities that are bracing for the inevitable.

“There’s been a lack of progress at international negotiations. We saw it at Rio+20 [the Earth Summit last month in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil],” says Cynthia Rosenzweig, head of Climate Impacts Group at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. “There’s a growing realization that cities are the right level of governance to tackle climate change issues.”

Rosenzweig, who has been involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since it produced its first global assessment report in 1990, is among the leaders of the Urban Climate Change Research Network, a group of scientists working to chart a course for cities worldwide.

Last year, the network released its first IPCC-style climate report for cities. The report finds that urban areas are vulnerable to climate hazards and extremes such as heat waves and flooding, which can wreak havoc on energy systems, water supplies, and transportation systems. Extreme weather can also bring a slew of public health problems, including water- and foodborne diseases, the expanding range of vector-born diseases such as malaria and dengue, and respiratory illnesses brought on by worsening air quality. A second report, due out in 2015, will serve as a toolkit for cities that will be on the front lines of climate change.

Rosenzweig says cities are best equipped to handle these issues because they have a long history of responding to environmental issues and disasters (witness Hurricane Katrina, or, less disastrously, Irene, which nonetheless spurred the evacuation of 370,000 people from New York City), because city leaders are, by necessity, practical and action-oriented (“Mayors are the great pragmatists of the world’s stage,” New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is fond of saying), and because they are, quite literally, where the rubber hits the hot asphalt.

So while national and international leaders dicker with the details of inadequate agreements, cities are getting down to business. The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group estimates that the leaders of the world’s metropolises have already taken more than 5,000 actions to mitigate climate change, resulting in a reduction of more than a billion tons of CO2 by 2030. In Rio, C40, Local Governments for Sustainability (a.k.a. ICLEI), and other groups announced a new initiative [PDF] to make cities more resilient to climate change.

“It’s not just about the polar bears anymore,” said an L.A. Times editorial following the release of the reports a few weeks ago.

The UCLA report, commissioned by the city, helps drive that message home by providing temperature predictions on a neighborhood scale. So residents of mountain and desert areas such as Palm Springs will cook an average of 4 to 5 degrees F hotter, for example, while beachside residents will see temperatures rise an average of just 3-4 degrees F. Small comfort, of course, given the waves that will soon be swamping the first floor, but it brings climate change into focus on a very real, very local level.

The report suggests a number of strategies for making Los Angeles more disaster-proof. It suggests creating more cooling centers to fend off heatstroke and other illness, encouraging energy conservation on hot days, and promoting water conservation. To ease the heat, it suggests adjusting building codes to allow more green and “cool” roofs and cool pavement, planting trees, and creating new parks.

Other cities, including New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, are taking similar measures.

At a side event last month at the Earth Summit in Rio put on by C40, Rosenzweig predicted that 20 years hence, the cities will throw the main event, while national governments host sideshows. The truth of the matter was that the international negotiations in Rio this year were already the sideshow. The real action was outside the official meeting halls, and much of it was being driven by cities.

As they say in Wisconsin, it’s hotter than Dutch love in harvest out there. And it’s going to get worse. A few mayors, at least, intend to be ready for it.

Filed under: Cities

View full post on Grist

Turn up the heat: Environmentalists should join Occupy on May Day

April 30th, 2012 admin No comments

Photo by David Shankbone.

By Michael Sandmel

Photo by David Shankbone.

For a moment last fall, it felt like the “post-hope” era was coming to an end. Protesters in Egypt and Tunisia had won nonviolent revolutions, Occupy Wall Street offered us our own national rallying cry against the deep structural inequity threatening our democracy, and over 1,200 Americans took part in the biggest act of civil disobedience in the history of environmentalism. Maybe we’d all finally get off the internet and start directly confronting those things we’d been waiting for President Obama to fix for us since January 2009.

But then, as quickly as it began, it started to feel like it was over. Egypt’s revolution turned sour. Obama started waffling on Keystone. Occupy encampments all but disappeared. The Republican primaries came around and we watched in bemused horror as one climate-change-denying corporate stooge after the next pranced and preened for the opportunity to duke it out on live TV with our very own Disappointment in Chief.

Well, here’s the good news. Occupy is trying to make a comeback — and those of us who are concerned about the climate have an opportunity to push the issue into the spotlight, a chance that we largely missed the last time around.

For the past few months, organizers in cities all over the country have been focusing on this coming Tuesday, May 1. Here in New York you can’t walk more than three blocks without seeing a sticker, poster, or some scrawled sharpie graffiti reminding you of the “May 1 General Strike. No School. No Work. No Shopping.” I won’t go into whether it makes sense to call what’s happening a general strike. The point is that folks are trying to jump-start the engine of public critical thought and grassroots resistance. If you’re serious about fighting climate change and environmental injustice, it behooves you to join in.

Spending considerable time around the movement, I’ve found that most Occupiers care about climate change, they just don’t always know how to talk about it. When protesters made camp in Zuccotti Park on Sept. 17, they did so out of an enormous sense of desperation and blind faith that people coming together in public space could alter the political-ecological-economic collision course that we seem to be headed down. The early days of the Occupation were a whirl of political debate which generated documents like “The Declaration of The Occupation of New York City,” a list of abuses perpetrated by corporate power against the populace. This list included keeping us dependent on fossil fuels. However, there was no discussion of the costs of this dependency in terms of climate change and localized damage from extreme extraction.

The fact that climate change was not a fundamental component of this and other early documents represents an enormous missed opportunity. For decades, ecological economists have warned us about the dangers that come with a system geared toward infinite growth in a finite world. Now we find ourselves in a situation where traditional Keynesian solutions are likely to undermine our well-being and make it harder to prevent irreversible climate change that puts those least responsible at the greatest risk. If Occupiers wanted to talk about building an economy that works for “the 99%,” they should have been more up-front in acknowledging how unsustainable our current economy is, ecologically speaking.

It’s still a mystery to me exactly why climate change and other socio-environmental crises didn’t play a bigger role in these documents. My best guess after talking with dozens of occupiers is that folks felt like it was somewhat inappropriate to try and hijack the agenda in a community that included the homeless, the chronically unemployed, and those struggling with crippling debt burdens.

One activist, a 30-year-old sustainability consultant, told me that he had seen climate as a good “long-term” issue for the movement once people had reclaimed their sense of political agency and collective power. There was an assumption that those encamped in Zuccotti would have plenty of time to develop their message. However, shortly after the fledgling group in New York came to consensus on the Declaration of Occupation, the movement spread nationwide, and they began to lose control over the conversation they had started.

Environmentalists continue to work inside the movement, however, many of them in well-organized “working groups.” In New York, the sustainability working group powered Zuccotti with energy bikes. The environmentalist solidarity group led a climate justice day of teach-ins and got the general assembly to issue a public statement condemning a bizarre campaign to support the Keystone XL tar-sands pipeline that used the rhetoric of Occupy. Other working groups formed around animal rights, local farms, food justice, the Rio+20 Earth Summit, and trade justice.

After the Nov. 15 eviction from Zuccotti, these groups continued to meet. They even formed an Eco-Cluster in order to collaborate on a month of actions leading up to Earth Day. Yet, despite all of this terrific energy, organizers still couldn’t get the media to talk about sustainability as a core part of Occupy’s challenge to the status quo. The movement is widely credited with having “changed the conversation” in American life, but we’re still not talking about the elephant in the room.

If climate activists want to get serious about our one shot to prevent catastrophe, we need all the help we can get. We need to have a broad-based social movement in the U.S. that holds corporations and crooked politicians accountable. Additionally, Occupy needs us. It needs our energy and our creativity. It needs our unique understanding of the ways in which the climate crisis, left unattended, will put increased pressure on the 99%.

May Day is a gamble for Occupy. Huge amounts of energy have been poured into planning. The return on that investment will determine the future of the movement. We have an election coming up in which both sides will be taking enormous amounts of money from the same companies that have been bankrolling mountaintop-removal mining, funding climate denial think tanks, and standing in the way of any meaningful climate legislation.

May Day is also a chance at a fresh start. That means it’s also a chance for us inject some green wisdom into the core of the conversation. You don’t have to love everything that has been done in the name of Occupy so far. In fact, it’s probably best if you show up with some constructive criticism. But show up. Google your local Occupy group. Chances are they have something planned for May Day. We don’t get to choose when change will come or exactly what it will look like, but we do get to choose whether or not we want to join in the fight.

Filed under: Article, Climate & Energy, Politics

View full post on Grist

About that recordbreaking dead heat in Illinois (no, not the polls)

March 20th, 2012 admin No comments

Chicago in March

By Bill McKibben

It’s election day in Illinois, and the hottest topic in the Land of Lincoln will — I can forecast with complete confidence — be totally ignored by the GOP challengers.

That would be … the weather. Today may mark the seventh straight day of 80 degree temperatures at O’Hare, something that’s never happened before in March. Or in April, for that matter. “It is extraordinarily rare for climate locations with 100+ year-long periods of records to break records day after day after day,” the local office of the National Weather Service said in a statement Sunday morning, following a Saint Patrick’s Day that shattered 141 years of records.

And the Windy City is not alone. In International Falls, which threatened suit when a Colorado city tried to steal its “Nation’s Icebox” moniker, the mercury went to 77 degrees on Saturday — which was 42 degrees above average, and 22 degrees above the old record. It’s possible, according to weather historian Christopher Burt, that no station with a century of weather data has ever broken a mark by that much.

Here’s how Jeff Masters, founder of the website WeatherUnderground and probably the internet’s most widely read meteorologist, put it from his Michigan base: “As I stepped out of my front door into the pre-dawn darkness from my home I braced myself for the cold shock of a mid-March morning. It didn’t come. A warm, murky atmosphere, with temperatures in the upper fifties — 30 degrees above normal –greeted me instead. Continuous flashes of heat lightning lit up the horizon, as the atmosphere crackled with the energy of distant thunderstorms. I looked up at the hazy stars above me, flashing in and out of sight as lightning lit up the sky, and thought, this is not the atmosphere I grew up with.”

Indeed–later in the day an F-3 tornado wrecked a swath of homes and businesses just west of Ann Arbor, the earliest such storm Michigan has ever seen. “Never before has such an extended period of extreme and record-breaking warm temperatures affected such a large portion of the U.S. in March, going back to the beginning of record keeping in the late 1800s,” Masters wrote.

For 25 years climatologists have been telling us to expect exactly this kind of weather — such extremes become ever more likely as we warm the planet. It’s not just heat; it’s also drought and flood. Last year the U.S. suffered through more multi-billion-dollar weather disasters than any other year in history. And it’s not just the U.S. — in 2010, the world’s largest insurance company said there was no way to explain the rapid planetary spike in extreme weather except for global warming.

But here’s the weird part: in our political life, all the storms are about contraception and gas prices. In 1988, presidential candidate George H.W. Bush promised to meet “the greenhouse effect with the White House effect,” and it was considered normal and proper, even though climate science was still in its infancy. Now, even though the science is long since settled, the GOP contenders vie to produce the most clownish possible response. Rick Santorum probably takes the prize — asked about global warming the other day in Mississippi, where he was campaigning with a piece of shale rock to underscore his commitment to endless drilling, his response was: “The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is.”

Mitt Romney has been only slightly less ludicrous. His take: “Scientists will figure out ten, twenty, fifty years from now” if humans are a significant cause of global warming. In fact, fifty years from now, computer models predict, this kind of March will be nothing abnormal — and summer will be, if not exactly hell, then a remarkably similar temperature.

President Obama? He’s willing to grant that climate change is real, even if he rarely mentions it in public. (The 17-minute Barack Obama: The Movie devotes exactly zero seconds to climate change, which is pretty much precisely the emphasis its received in his first term.) This week he’s off across the country touting his ‘all-of-the-above” energy policy, posing with drilling rigs.

But at least he noticed what was going on in his hometown. Speaking at a fundraiser at Tyler Perry’s Atlanta home (while Georgia was breaking most of its own early season temperature records), the president said, “It gets you a little nervous about what is happening to global temperatures. When it is 75 degrees in Chicago in the beginning of March, you start thinking.”

In case you were worried imminent action was at hand, however, he quickly added: “On the other hand, I really have enjoyed the nice weather.”

Filed under: Climate & Energy, Election 2012

View full post on Grist

Better than air conditioning: Tips for biking through the heat wave

August 1st, 2011 admin No comments

by Elly Blue.

The heat wave is gearing
up for another blast, throwing temperatures over 100 at residents across North
America.

For many, the heat a
deterrent for getting on a bike. It doesn’t have to be.

You can bike happily
through even the hottest days of the year if you think of bicycling not as an
athletic endeavor, but as a leisurely way to get around that includes free,
green air conditioning.

 I’m in the Pacific Northwest, where our
climate is increasingly rainy. But don’t resent me—I’ve weathered some heat
waves in my time, and biked through most of them. Here’s what I’ve learned
about surviving—and thriving—the hottest days of summer by bike.

First things first

Turn off that air
conditioning.

Or at least turn up the
thermostat. Here’s why: If you’re always going back and forth between extremes
of hot and cold, the heat will feel like an oppressive blast each time you step
outside. But if you give your body a chance to actually acclimate—it
takes a couple of weeks
—you’ll be much more comfortable, outdoors and
in. For acclimating to the heat, it helps to be on the fit side, which is
another reason to keep on biking. 

What to wear

There are two schools of
thought on how much of your body to cover. Many people prefer to strip down to
as little as possible—(though you probably should avoid taking it too
far
).

Many who live in hot
climates year-round say it’s best to cover as much of
your body as possible
with lightweight fabric to protect you from the sun.

I’ve written about
adjusting your everyday wardrobe for daily summer bike riding elsewhere.
The essential rule, though, is that lightweight natural fibers are more
comfortable, while lightweight polyester prints won’t show sweat. If you need
to look professional at the end of your ride, a spit bath and change of clothes
is the ticket.

A cycling cap, the
identifying marker of bike messengers, racers, and their imitators, can be a
life saver. It’ll keep the sun off your head, keep the sweat off your face, and
shade your eyes. Another essential accessory is the bandana or scarf tied
around your wrist to mop the sweat from your brow at stop lights.

Oh, and use sunblock.
Lots of it. This ain’t your grandmother’s ozone layer.

Water

Before you set off for a
long ride in the heat, drink a lot of water. Like a gallon. You’ll sweat it all
out as you ride. Drink slowly, and stop if it gets uncomfortable—yes, it is
possible to drink too much water.

While you ride, and when
you get off your bike, keep on drinking. But stick to room temperature tap
water. Cold water and ice shock your system and are harder for your body to
absorb.

Eating salty foods helps
with water absorption. Alcohol, caffeine, soda, and juice, on the other hand,
require a lot of water and energy for your body to process, so if you drink
this stuff you’ll need to drink even more water along with them.

Another use for water is
pouring it on yourself. You can get a similar effect more efficiently by
soaking a bandana with cold water and tying it around your head under your
helmet. Cooling down your head will help cool your entire body.

Timing

Timing is everything.

Leave yourself plenty of
time. Heading out 15 minutes early can make the difference between a sweltering
hustle that leaves you drenched and drained on the other end and a pleasant
ride that generates an almost cooling breeze. The latter puts you in a far
better mood than a similar trip by car and gives you a few minutes at the end
to wash your face and catch your breath.

The coolest hours of the
day fall around 4am to 7am, while the evening commute tends to be the hottest
time of the day. Plan accordingly. It’s a good idea to have a backup plan, like
bus fare or a friend or cab you can call if you get partway home and start
feeling rough—you
don’t want to mess with heat stroke
.

The hotter it is, the
more aggressively and impatiently people tend to drive. This is another
excellent argument for bicycling, but when you do, be extra careful out there
at the hottest times of day.

Outfitting your bike for
the heat

Now is a good time to
make sure your bike is well tuned up so you aren’t working any harder than you
have to. Top off your tire pressure every few days (if you don’t have a floor
pump, drop by a bike shop and use theirs). Make sure your chain is greased and
your gears well adjusted so you can use all of them.

A heat wave is also a
good incentive to take that load off your back. Equip your bike with a rear
rack and panniers (you can make your own out of buckets for next
to nothing
) or a front basket to carry your bag in. You’ll sweat less and
swear less.

•••

Hot weather biking isn’t
for everyone. But if you put some thought into how you dress, take it slow, and
always have water and snacks on hand, you can do it—and you’ll probably even
love it.

How are you dealing with biking through the
heat wave?

Related Links:

New photovoltaic generator runs on heat instead of sunlight

Toyota concept bike has psychic gear shift

How do you design a bike that will make people give up cars?






View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist

Packing heat: Why violence boils over on a warming planet

July 24th, 2011 admin No comments

by Claire Thompson.

A Kenyan pastoralist killed in a cattle raid; an Afghan
farmer trusting the Taliban to protect his poppy crop; more crackdowns along the
U.S.-Mexico border; the Arab Spring—are these isolated incidents of region-specific
violence and turmoil? Or can they all claim a common root cause: climate
change?

Journalist Christian Parenti, author of the new book Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New
Geography of Violence
, makes the case that climate change has contributed
to all of these upheavals. Parenti lays out how climate change works as a
catalyst for unrest in what he defines as the “Tropic of Chaos,” the band
encircling the middle of the globe between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic
of Capricorn, where already-destabilized nations are particularly vulnerable to
the devastating effects of increasingly extreme weather patterns.

I sat down with Parenti to get the lowdown on the chaos and
what needs to happen to stave off the worst-case scenarios.

Q. Your book contains a ton of on-the-ground reports from
all over the developing world. Did you set out to these places with a thesis in
mind? How did you form the idea behind Tropic
of Chaos
?

A. I was originally under contract to write a book about
Afghanistan. But Afghanistan felt understood to me. There are books out there
if you want to read them. This question of how climate change is going to, and
already does, create violence—there wasn’t a book that really made that
argument. Climate change works through other preexisting problems, particularly
the legacy of the Cold War, and the legacy of neoliberal economic
restructuring. These two forces in combination have, [in] much of the Global South, set the stage for crisis. And now comes anthropogenic climate
change, wreaking a unique and special and intense kind of havoc by turning up
the intensity of these preexisting conflicts.

Q. What is the legacy of those two forces?

A. The Cold War created a glut of weapons in the Global South.
It created infrastructures of smuggling and assassination; all kinds of
strategies and tactics of asymmetrical warfare are left behind. In countries
that were on the front lines of the proxy conflicts of the Cold War, the landscape
is littered with bands of armed men whose business is running guns one way and
drugs the other way, or blood diamonds one way and drugs the other way.

And then the legacy of economic restructuring and
neoliberalism, through the structural adjustment programs of the IMF and the
World Bank, has increased inequality, increased poverty. There’s this
particular injury that comes with inequality that sociologists refer to as
relative deprivation. It’s pretty clear that poverty doesn’t in and of itself
cause instability and violence. But the experience of deprivation in relation
to what was, what should be, what others have, what would be just—that is
definitely associated with rebellion.

Q. So how does climate change play into that?

A. Afghanistan’s a good example, where the drought
is pushing people into poppy production. In Afghanistan, one side of the war
attacks poppy: NATO, the U.S., the Afghan government. The other side of the war
protects poppy: the Taliban. The farmers who grow poppy would say to me, well,
one reason we do this and take these risks is because poppy is so drought
resistant. It takes one-fifth the amount of water that wheat uses. And
Afghanistan is suffering the worst drought in living memory, which has
coincided with this whole NATO occupation. There’s this material interest in
defending their right to grow the only crop that’s feasible under these drought
conditions. And this drought fits the pattern of climate change. Scientists are
clear about not saying any climatological or weather event is definitively
caused by climate change, but there’s a pattern of the increased El Niño and La
Niña cycles, and increased drought and flooding in a lot of areas. This pattern
has been predicted for two decades and we see it kicking in.

Q. You don’t address the Arab Spring in your book. [Parenti finished writing it just before the protests began.] Are the uprisings in the Middle
East also a result of the “catastrophic convergence” of political, economic,
and environmental crises?

A. The Arab Spring, I’ve been arguing, is in part triggered
by climate change. The question is why now, right? Egypt lived for 30 years
under this kleptocratic police state. Why didn’t they rebel last year, or two
years from now? One thing that happened was grain prices almost doubled last
year: Corn prices went up by 91 percent, wheat prices went up by 83 percent. The
corn prices were affected by flooding in Canada, the U.S., and Australia. The
Black Sea drought—the worst drought that the former Soviet Union has seen in
a hundred years—affected grain crops in the Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan
very badly. The largest wheat exporter in the world, Russia, declared a total
ban on wheat exports. The largest wheat importer in the world is Egypt. Food
inflation was running at 20 percent. The average Egyptian spends 40 percent of
their income on food. These rebellions are always about much more. But,
crucially, there was the price of bread, and that was linked to climate change.
So I wouldn’t reduce the Arab Spring to climate change, but it’s about trying
to tease out the causal role of climate change within all these crises.

Q. Your book focuses mainly on what’s going on in the Global
South, the developing nations most affected by the collision of politics and
climate change. Could we expect to see similar instability in the Global North?

A. No, I don’t think that kind of instability is on the
horizon for the U.S. What is on the horizon for the U.S., in response to the
gathering crisis of climate change, is increased xenophobia, increased
surveillance, increased repression, a hardening of the state. This has been
going on for 30 years in the U.S., and it’s not articulated as a response to
climate change, but you can see that some of the pressures that it is
articulated in response to, like immigration, are themselves caused by climate
change. What are the real drivers behind immigration? Increasingly, climate
change. We’re locked in for a three-foot sea rise by the end of the century.
What does that mean for the movement of people?

Q. We know the science, we have the technology, and, as you
explain in your book, corporate America has the capital to invest in clean
energy. So why doesn’t the U.S. government get serious about climate
policy?

A. There has been tremendous pushback from the fossil-fuel
lobby. The Koch brothers have invested millions of dollars in messaging around
casting doubt on the science, casting doubt on the efficacy of economic plans
to transition away from fossil fuels. They have been very effective. A Pew poll found that 79 percent of people in 2006 thought climate change was a serious
issue, and now it’s down to 63 percent. But that’s still a lot of people that
take it seriously. Other policies have been pushed through without that level
of consensus.

Q. So what will force governments to make the changes we
need?

A. People need to act collectively. It’s about direct
action. People sitting on top of mountains and getting arrested and saying, “No,
we’re not going to let you blow this mountain up.” We need to rebuild social
movements.

In the face of this crisis, in this country, the state is
either going to be a more repressive, environmentally triggered, climate
crisis-oriented police state that develops, or it’s going to be a state that
reengages with economic planning, economic retribution, a green New Deal, a
mixed economy—basically Green Keynesianism. We have to recognize that
American capitalism is a mixed economy and the government plays a central role,
and we should build on what it does well and make sure it does that better.

Related Links:

Climate scientist: It’s only going to get hotter

Minor threat: Our lame response to climate change

Talking about the weather, post chitchat






View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist

Incoming search terms for the article:

Combined Heat and Power Contract Manager / Southern California Edison / Rosemead, CA

April 7th, 2011 admin No comments

Southern California Edison/Rosemead, CA

Southern California Edison
NC SCE – NB61674496EA – Combined Heat and Power Contract Manager

Work Location: CA-Rosemead

Basic Qualifications:
Must have utility or energy industry operations or contracting experience.

Core Competencies:
- A Bachelor's Degree in Engineering, Business, Finance, Economics, or a related field or an equivalent combination of education, training and experience.
- Typically possesses five or more years of experience in project and/or contract management.
- Typically possesses two or more years of supervisory or program management experience.
- Demonstrated experience with energy tariffs and electric power purchase agreements.
- Demonstrated experience with combined heat and power or cogeneration systems.
- Demonstrated experience with deregulated energy markets.
- Demonstrated experience supporting the formulation of strategic recommendations regarding key contract provisions after interfacing with key subject matter experts.
- Demonstrated experience establishing systems and metrics to track and report on progress toward achievement of goals and objectives for assigned projects and programs.
- Demonstrated experience assisting in the management, evaluation, development, and implementation of projects.
- Demonstrated experience ensuring projects are completed on schedule and within budget and making recommendations regarding establishing and changing project direction.
- Demonstrated experience leading and/or participating in cross-functional development teams to address issues and solve problems.
- Demonstrated experience interacting with all levels of management, contractors, suppliers, regulatory agencies, customers, other departments, and acting as a key consultant to management for both functional and broad business issues.
- Demonstrated experience participating in the negotiation and/or management of contracts.
- Demonstrated experience using Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint.
- Must demonstrate the ability to integrate work across relevant areas, develop the business and services to enhance customer satisfaction and productivity, manage risks and safety appropriately, develop and execute business plans, manage information, and provide exceptional service to internal and external customers.
- Must demonstrate effective resource and project planning, decision making, results delivery, team building, and the ability to stay current with relevant technology and innovation.
- Must demonstrate strong ethics, influence and negotiation, leadership, interpersonal skills, communication, and the ability to effectively manage stress and engage in continuous learning.

COMMENTS: Additional testing may be required as part of the selection process for this position. This position has been identified as a NERC/CIP impacted position – Prior to being hired, the successful candidate must pass a Personnel Risk Assessment (PRA) or Background Investigation. Once hired, the candidate must complete specified training prior to gaining un-escorted access to assigned work location and performing necessary job duties. Candidates for this position must be legally authorized to work directly as employees for any employer in the United States without visa sponsorship.

Typical Responsibilities:
This position will be in the Combined Heat and Power Contracts division within Southern California Edison's (SCE) Power Supply Business Unit. The successful candidate will support the planning and implementation of various aspects of the Qualifying Facilities (QF)/Combined Heat and Power (CHP) program.

Typical responsibilities will include: establishing systems and metrics to track and report on progress toward achievement of goals for generating capacity under contract and greenhouse gas reductions; advising and facilitating counterparties' interactions on interconnection agreements and facilities; negotiating and executing standard Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with CHP projects, including working with other SCE departments as directed by section manager to operationalize the PPAs; assisting in the conduct of Request for Offers (RFOs) and resulting negotiations of structured transactions that result from them; assisting the section manager and Senior Energy Contracts/Trading Specialist in negotiating bilateral PPAs with CHP projects, new and existing; working with customers and developers, answering queries about program, contracts, and applications for contracts, and assisting management in developing applications and the contract origination process for standard offers; and performing other responsibilities and duties as assigned.

Edison International and Southern California Edison reserve the right to close or cancel a posting at any time.

If you are interested in this position, please submit your resume in confidence by visiting www.edisonjobs.com.

Edison International is an Equal Opportunity Employer.


Apply To Job

View full post on GreenBiz Jobs

Incoming search terms for the article:

What this election means for climate hawks: light but no heat

November 3rd, 2010 admin No comments

by Christopher Mims.

If
Democrats have a safe word, no one in the party could remember what
it was this election season as Republicans and their new buddies the
Tea Party spanked the Dems so hard it makes one wonder how much
longer history’s most dysfunctional sub/dom relationship can possibly
continue.

Even
election statistics uber-geek Nate Silver, a man not known for
hyperbole, said the gain of what’s likely to be 65 seats for
Republicans in the House is an “amazing
result
.” In other words, last
night was a split decision the way Mike Tyson’s first-round knockout
of Robin Givens was a split decision.

If
you’re a person in favor of action on climate and clean energy—in
other words, a climate
hawk
—you’d be forgiven for
thinking that now is a good time to pop a Glock in your mouth and
make
a brain slushy
.

But
wait, it gets worse! In many races, the GOP—the party formerly
known as the party whose constituents are least in favor of action on
climate change—has been superseded by the only party ever invented
by powerful corporate interests
whose constituents, polls reveal, are even less in favor of action on
climate change. Only one-quarter
of Tea Partiers
think climate
change is a problem, which is less than half the proportion of
independents who feel that way.

The
incoming candidates are, almost
exclusively
, climate zombies—in
denial about either the reality or the causes of climate change, and
they’re in a fightin’, or at least brain-eatin’, mood.

The
Department of Justice has demonstrated a determination to shoot down
lawsuits attempting to block EPA action on greenhouse gas emissions,
and a divided Congress can’t roll back the Clean Air Act to stop the
EPA from clamping down on CO2 emissions, so what’s first on the
agenda of House climate zombies?

Hearings!
Lots of them. House climate zombies have been trying to put the
science of climate change on trial ever since the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce unironically suggested a “Scopes
Monkey Trial
” on the issue.

Journalist
Mike Roddy is giddy
at the prospect
of scientists
getting grilled by politicians on Capitol Hill.

Bring
it on, baby. I can’t wait to see televised hearings, showing people
like Michael Mann and James Hansen pitted against [Rep. Darrel] Issa
[R-Calif.] and [Sen. James] Inhofe [R-Okla.]. Even the average
American will be able to figure out who actually knows what he’s
talking about if this happens.

Sounds
fun, right? Finally, those reticent eggheads will be forced to stand
up and fight for Mother Earth in a WWE Raw-style smackdown in which
all the beer costs $8 and the spectacle’s the thing.

But
we don’t have to wonder how it’ll play out: We can ask the one
climate scientist who has suffered more collateral damage than anyone
else as a result of the politicization of the science of climate
change.

Michael
Mann is being sued by the attorney general of Virginia for scientific
fraud. I’m sure that’s just what he was expecting when he went to
graduate school for atmospheric physics. Here’s his
take
on the situation:

The
truth is that they don’t expect to uncover anything. Instead, they
want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning
basic science and promoting doubt where there is none.

Related Links:

Boehner takes over and climate legislation fades to black

Why this election wasn’t a referendum on the climate bill

Was this election good for the fish?






View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist

Incoming search terms for the article: