Comments Zephaniah has made

What to say to anyone who will listen:

Our taxes have paid for scientists to study this. At globalchange.gov you can read the reports. There is no dispute over the science of climate change, only over whether we can take action that benefits everybody, or whether we will destroy our civilization fighting over slices of the pie.

Living things on Earth are now being destroyed by the emissions from burning fossil fuels. This is happening, it is not just a possibility. There has been no debate since 1896 over the science, when Arhenius' brilliant mathematical calculations predicted that the Earth would warm as burning coal and oil released more carbon dioxide than plants could absorb. (CO2).

'Don't worry, the oceans will absorb it all", was the untested assumption for decades. Then, in the1950s  scientists found out that the ocean was releasing CO2 and not absorbing it all. Shortly thereafter, a discovery of a way to measure the concentration of CO2 in the air  proved that Arhenius was right. The earliest predictions of temperature rise made in the 1970s have come true much faster and higher than expected.

If your child were afflicted with an unusual and serious disease, wouldn't you study it and try to find the best treatment possible?

Earth's temperature has now risen nearly a couple degrees Fahrenheit, and the specialists say that it will go up between 4 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, depending on how much fossil fuel is burned. Living plants and creatures, including people, are sensitive to temperature changes. When a human body temperature goes up 6 degrees, it's time for intensive care and prayers.  Same thing with Earth. Seafood may be the first to go, apparently, as CO2 in the ocean means carbonic acid which dissolves shells.

The guilt inducing factor is that WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TO DO: STOP BURNING FOSSIL FUELS. We also know that if we do not start reducing CO2 emissions now, it will be too late.

We all participate. Every time I cook food, drive to the grocery, turn on the furnace, bathe, or use my computer I am using the burning of fossil fuels for my lifestyle.

I have tried to reduce my carbon footprint, I walk and take the bus more, hang laundry to dry, buy in bulk, cook at home, grow vegetables, use a solar cooker and wear a wet t-shirt instead of turning on an air conditioner.

But I know that I still cause a huge amount of warming, and my taxes are making it worse because they are used to subsidize the fossil fuel industry. Even in the Cap and Trade bill there is support for clean energy like solar, wind and geothermal but also  huge grants to the Coal industry.

So, do I quit and go water skiing??  No. I log on to a couple organizations which have dedicated, intelligent, and informed people studying how to preserve their future. And every week I send a couple letters to Congress, other Government Officials, and CEOs of corporations. If enough people did this, we could counter the pressure of the fossil fuel lobby and get legislation that actually solves the problem.

You really can help!!!  The Cap and Trade bill is not perfect, but you can't ride a bicycle until it gets rolling. We need to tell Congress to keep the good parts and scrap the bad parts.

So get on line.  Go to an action site at  1Sky, or Union of Concerned Scientists, or Natural Resources Defense Council, or Greenpeace and send messages, There are letters there, already written, with excellent research to read.  Make your voice heard.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

During the debate on the climate bill in the House of Representatives, NOT ONE Representative quoted the scientific facts of climate change. No social movement  succeeds without informed support.

What if we assumed that if people know the truth they would make the right choices, and teach them the numbers. It I become really ill, I want the doctor to tell me, so I can try to heal. 

Preaching makes people's eye glaze but questions provoke attention. Please let me know what reactions you get, if you try asking these questions. [Answers are in parentheses]

1. What is the normal temperature of your body?  [  98.6oF ]

2. When you take your temperature with a thermometer and it’s a degree or two higher than normal what do you think? [You’re sick]

3. Do you know the average temperature of the surface of the Earth? [about 60oFahrenheit]

4. Do you know how much the Earth’s normal temperature has increased in the last 100 years since people started fossil fuels?  [One and one half degrees Fahrenheit]

5. Do you know what gas gets added to the air when oil, coal and natural gas (fossil fuels) burn? [carbon dioxide]

6. Do you know how much the normal amount of carbon dioxide in the air has increased in the last 100 years since people started burning fossil fuels?  [ increased from 280 parts per million to 387 ppm ] 

7. Carbon dioxide is increasing in the air how much every year now? [2 ppm every year]

8. Do you know how high Earth’s normal temperature will to go up in the next 100 years, depending on how soon people stop burning fossil fuels? [Between 4oF and 9 o F]

9, If your body gets a temperature that high, what do you think might happen to you? [          ]

10 How do you think other animals and plants on Earth will react to temperature rises that high?  [      ]

10. Do you know what we need to do to stop the rising temperatures? [Stop burning fossil fuels, switch to energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, or wave, that do not add carbon dioxide to the air]

This is a simplified version obviously, but I find it is as much as I can get anyone to hear. Maybe they will pay more attention, maybe log on to information sites like globalchange.gov or take action at USC.org  Union of Concerned Scientists, or NRDC.org Natural Resources Defense Council, or Greenpeace or Sierra Club or read Grist's 'How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.' 

Try it and tell me what you think.

Tax us to subsidize the coal industry?  May as well make us dig our own graves.

Dave, Nicely put!!

Bud,

The Supreme Court ruled in Mass v. EPA in 2007 that the Environmental Protection Agency's steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions [N.B. under the previous administration!This has now changed]  presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both “actual” and “imminent.”

... the NRC Report itself—which EPA regards as an “objective and independent assessment of the relevant science,” 68 Fed. Reg. 52930—identifies a number of environmental changes that have already inflicted significant harms, including “the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of rivers and lakes, [and]the accelerated rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years . . . .” NRC Report 16.

Petitioners allege that this only hints at the environmental damage yet to come. According to the climate scientist Michael MacCracken, “qualified scientific experts involved in climate change research” have reached a“strong consensus” that global warming threatens (among other things) a precipitate rise in sea levels by the end of the century, MacCracken Decl. ¶15, Stdg. App. 207, “severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems,” id., ¶5(d), at 209, a “significant reduction in water storage inwinter snowpack in mountainous regions with direct andimportant economic consequences,” ibid., and an increase in the spread of disease, id., ¶28, at 218–219. ...

 and rising ocean temperatures [that] may contribute to the ferocity of hurricanes. Id., ¶¶23–25, at 216–217.¹⁸

Dave Dave Dave. Mixed messages - name calling smackss of lack of confidence. It was fun though!  

Talking about global warming can stir strong feelings. Staying cool while talking about it is important.

Here is a list of short answers for most common comments. Using them helps me keep from feeling irritated or from taking until peoples' eyes glaze over.

Please share if you like, and post your own lists.  

Quick Answers to Climate Queries 

Climate Change is not happening

The Supreme Court stated: “The harms associated with climate change are serious and

well recognized.: a rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in winter snowpack with direct and important economic consequences

and increases in the spread of disease and the ferocity of weather events.”  Mass v. EPA April 2007

National Academies of Science of US, Canada, China, Japan, France, Germany, Russia, England,  India and more agree that the climate is warming and the main cause is carbon dioxide emissions.

Climate Change is a political ruse,  an al gore ism

President GW Bush, called global warming “a serious problem, and said we need to “get beyond the debate” and deploy new technologies to curb greenhouse gases.  

John McCain said “The evidence is compelling””It’s serious and it’s generated by human activity.” Republican Gov Schwarzenegger leads in action to counter climate change.

It’s been really cold lately

That’s the weather; Climate is determined by averages of measurements taken over many years. Melting polar ice and glaciers, stronger storm surges, heat waves and rising ocean levels are clear evidence of the warming trend in world climate.

Sunspots or Earth’s magnetic field, or urban heat, or the elliptical orbit of Earth, etc is the real cause of warmer temperatures.

These factors affect climate a tiny bit, but  only one factor clearly and consistently correlates with all of the evidence. That culprit is greenhouse gases which are accumulating from burning of fossil fuels. 

Natural cycle or We are heading into an ice age

Earth’s climate naturally cycles between ice ages and warmer phases over 10,000 or more years. The global warming we are experiencing has happened over 100 years, a MUCH shorter time period.  Also, if the natural cycle were predominating, Earth would be getting colder not warmer now.

We can’t afford to use alternative energy.

The cost of damage to our economy and our society, the floods, fires, water shortages, storm surges, disease spread, refugees, insect infestation, and crop damage and will be far more than we spend to switch to a green low carbon energy, and the longer we wait the more it will cost. Electricity from wind turbines is cheaper than from natural gas plants, with costs spread out over 12 to 15 years. Costs of solar and geothermal have been decreasing steadily and will be competitive when they are mass produced.

.

Forest fires put just as much carbon into the air

Burning trees release carbon that was stored over the past hundred or so years. Burning coal, oil and natural gas release carbon that was stored over millions of years as they formed. Plants alive today cannot absorb the large quantity of carbon dioxide our society puts into the atmosphere. 

Isn’t there a big debate over climate change? 

Atmospheric scientists are united in their explanation of the science. The only real debate  has been over whether we act to stop it now or  wait and take the risk of  not changing in time.

Fossil fuel companies have paid scientists and journalists millions of dollars to make people believe it’s not happening or that it doesn’t need immediate action. 

It’s huge and it’s unpleasant, we don’t want to believe it.

Newspapers and TV and radio present things having two sides because that is more entertaining.

The science is new, only thirty years since computers first became able to handle the complexity of measurements. 

If climate change cannot be reversed, why try?

Climate change cannot be reversed, but it can be stopped. The world will continue to get increasingly hot for several decades because of the excess carbon dioxide in the air, but if we switch to clean energy now, temperatures could level off mid century.

Words help others get the picture

Suntainable:
Rich green fertile bountiful verdant complex agricultural luxurious lush abundant plentiful inexhaustible unending perpetual boundless copious ample prolific flourishing profuse harvest cultivation produce sound vigorous hardy healthy preserve enhance improve conserve protect defend strengthen grow increase develop progress mature stable  leaf out productive fruitful
Farsighted provident wise prudent acute shrewd considerate provident careful alert thoughtful

Unsustainable:
Sparse scant meager inadequate lean thin limited impaired weakened reduced diminished hurt crushed shrunken mortified distressed crippled damaged harmed ailing ravaged injured spoiled botched mutilate harm waste deprive squander dissipate misuse ruin wreck demolish dwindle decline weaken decrease diminish subside ebb wane wither  uneconomical thriftless improvident dwindle shrink stagnate decline destabilize barren unproductive sterile empty fruitless impotent
Shortsighted myopic unthinking careless wasteful unthinking thoughtless incautious foolish impetuous improvident injudicious heedless inattentive neglectful foolish inconsiderate On Seeing the light in the Pew poll on Americans' top priorities posted 10 months, 1 week ago 14 Responses

Oil economy promotes sexism

The oil economy has promoted sexism on a grand scale, both here and even more so in the Middle Eastern oil producing countries.
In trainings for carbon reducing jobs we can mindfully avoid bias. On NYT op-ed says mostly men will benefit from green jobs posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 8 Responses

The time factor

Glad you asked.

Time is the critical factor here.

Milankovitch's studies in the 1930s showed that ice ages and warming periods on Earth are thousands of years long.  They are set off by regular changes in the tilt of Earth's axis and changes in Earth's orbit around the sun, and continued by feedback mechanisms. An example of feedback is that melting ice is replaced by dark water which then warms the sea and air further, which melts more ice, etc.

These natural cycles change the climate SLOWLY. There is a HUGE difference between 4000 to 10,000 year warming and cooling cycles and a 150 year span within which the Earth's temperature changes even more dramatically.

Also, there is a huge difference between a natural process which reverses itself, and keeps the Earth at a temperature that sustains most species, and the human provoked process we are seeing now which has no natural reversal.  

In 1958 a scientist started accurately measuring the amount of CO2 in the air. Keelings' data showed rapidly rising CO2 and temperatures. The speed of the change is, I believe, twenty times faster than changes in the natural cycle, and also in the opposite direction. We would be heading toward a cooler period in the natural cycle.

Computer modeling in the 1970s allowed analysis of the many complex factors. Early models underestimated the warming and the damages to life on Earth.
As more studies become available we can get a clearer picture. For example, the lesser degree of warming over the Antarctic is related to a cooling vortex caused by the hole in the ozone layer.

Other new data projects increasing methane releases from melting permafrost and drying peat leading to the possibility of a runaway climate.

Yes, there really is a problem, and all the wishing in the world does not make it go away. So, lets get some legislation in place to stop burning and start carbon-free living. On CO2 -- but not the sun -- 'is significantly correlated' with temperature since 1850 posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses

No Detroit bailout

We should lobby against bailout money to the American auto manufacturers.
To achieve carbon reductions, there should be fewer automobiles and more public transit. Even if the car manufacturers promised to use the money only for retooling for electric vehicles, bailout money would still facilitate increased production of oil burning vehicles.
This is not retribution for the refusal of the manufacturers to agree to CAFÉ standards, or design for fuel efficiency.
We simply need to make a clear statement that America and the rest of the world needs reduce carbon output now.
To lessen the impact on the unemployed, the government should spend for training for manufacture of transit, carbon-free energy, energy conservation, low energy building and research and development for a carbon free era. This would provide many many more jobs for the same money.

It is time to stop lobbying for what we think we can get and work for what needs to be done.
On Top scientist dismayed at spending imbalance on climate, poverty posted 12 months ago 4 Responses

Stop rate decoupling

People who use less energy should pay less. Rewarding conservation should be a basic policy that guides utilities in rate setting. We need to monitor utilities and stop 'decoupling.'  
The following is a quote from the Wall St Journal article about utilities response to lowered electricity use.
"Utilities are taking a hard look at the way they set rates and generate profits. Many companies are embracing a new rate design based on "decoupling," in which they set prices aimed at covering the basic costs of delivery, with sales above that level being gravy. Regulators have resisted the change in some places, because it typically means that consumers using little energy pay somewhat higher rates."On Big drop in U.S. electricity consumption confounds utilities posted 1 year ago 14 Responses

Job Creation Illuminated

The federal government has provided $725 billion in energy subsidies (including R&D funding and tax breaks) over the last 50 years. Oil and gas got 60% of that $725 billion. Next in line is coal at 13%, followed by hydropower at 11%. Nukes come in at 9%, while renewables got only 6% -- just one tenth of the largess showed on oil and gas.

Job creation does not mean the federal government just pays salaries; it is done with tax credits, research and training grants, loans and various financial incentives encouraging private industry to provide jobs. The US government has been creating jobs in the fossil fuel industry for decades.

To save the world from terminal warming, now we  need subsidies to encourage solar, wind, geothermal, wave, or algae power instead, a shift of funding. If we count the billions spent to establish bases in oil producing foreign countries, and the fact that with solar and wind power there is no fuel cost, the switch to clean energy will actually save us money.

The cost of doing nothing, the damages to our economy and our resources from continued use of fossil fuels, has doubled in the last two years. We need Obama's energy plan to start yesterday!!On Obama pitches green to 100K posted 1 year, 1 month ago 4 Responses

lobby for green energy stimulus

Congress is considerine a stimulus plan that would fund unemployment checks, roads and bridges and state general funds. Instead, shouldn't our taxes be invested in green energy that will save us money later??? Sample letter below.

Stimulate our economy? Let's stimulate it with hope by transitioning to clean power now.
We should provide jobs and training for a generation of workers in alternative energy production and installation. I want my taxes spent to put solar panels on roofs and parking lots of every government building, and to build solar, geothermal and wind power plants and new transmission lines across the nation.
We should not build more roads, encouraging our addiction to oil; instead we should manufacture and distribute electric buses and light rail systems for efficient, convenient and relaxing worker transportation.
State and local governments, especially those that have been dependent on fossil fuel industries would be revitalized by the new manufacturing and profit from a raised tax base.  
Even schoolchildren know that burning coal, oil and natural gas is overheating the world and destroying resources and infrastructure. The predictions that scientists made a few decades ago about stronger storms, fires, droughts, floods,  insect infestations and ice melt have come true much sooner than expected,  and the speed of the warming is accelerating.
The American public is deeply worried about the climate crisis and crying for solutions. Many businesses have taken steps on their own, and even the fossil fuel companies advertise their willingness to make the transition to 21st century cool power.
An economic stimulus plan that transforms the sources of our nations power, would give us confidence that our government can protect us and give us a future full of hope.  
On Coal-power producer will disclose climate-change risks to shareholders posted 1 year, 1 month ago 3 Responses

bio of poster of 'jet stream...'

Jack of all trades - contruction, fishing, tuba player, blues guitarist, solid waste planner, and now an air quality consultant (speciaizing in ship air emissions). On NOAA's arctic report card shows stronger effects of warming in Greenland and permafrost posted 1 year, 1 month ago 2 Responses

A clean clear path

Making clean energy cheaper than energy from fossil fuels is the ticket to halting global warming.  
Producing enough clean energy to meet all US needs, will help lower the price of clean energy technology that we sell to other countries. Then  they can stop burning fossil fuels also, develop vibrant urban areas and productive farmland,and  preserve the remaining rainforests.
A world population, stabilized by universal access to affordable family planning and plentiful clean energy, can create a sustainable 21st century economy.
 On Wind, solar thermal, and geothermal development outpaces expectations posted 1 year, 1 month ago 14 Responses

Hope and action

Don't DO this to me! For half a minute, I thought that scientists actually had evidence against climate change. My hopes soared. But no, global warming is a harsh, heavy, reality.
Your reason for the title to this article is what - to play with our emotions, to make us practice talking to those not in the choir, or maybe to remind us that there are LOTS of oily employees talking to OUR elected officials right NOW, and that we should make sure congress knows that more and more of us see a bright future with clean energy if the government would only stop pandering to the fossil fuel industry. Some sites that will help you send letters:
http://wecansolveit.org/   We can Solve the Climate Crisis
http://nrdc.org/    National Resources Defense Council
http://www.ucsusa.org/   Union of Concerned Scientists
On Is the American Physical Society a crack in the climate change consensus? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 Responses

Solar Powered Century

Drilling is so last century. Drilling is phonographs, ice boxes, dial up phones, tape recorders, saddle shoes, hula hoops, casseroles, penny candy.....On Drilling a hot topic as Congress gets back in action posted 1 year, 2 months ago 2 Responses

devil's advocate?

Whether this person who ridicules the opinions of most readers here actually believes the drivel he espouses or is just a devil's advocate (no pun intended), it does provide a useful foil for enlightened people to practice explaining their values, recommendations and supportive examples or reasons.  
George Lakoff's book, Don't Think of an Elephant is a great book for helping turn your concerns into effective dialogue.On McCain talks energy in his big acceptance speech, but eschews talk of environmental concern posted 1 year, 2 months ago 19 Responses

Dig it

We have been composting for years in a 3' by 2' patch of dirt in our yard. We dig down two shovelfulls, dump in scraps, cover with dirt and tamp it down. Within about three weeks, the vegetable and fruit peels, paper napkins, coffee grounds and eggshells have turned into dirt. It's wierd but the amount of dirt there does not seem to visibly increase. If a squirrel or other critter discovers it, mashing the scraps in the dirt with the shovel before covering them helps discourage the mammals.

If the ground gets too frozen to dig, I use a couple 20-25 gallon rubbermaid storage containers with holes cut near the top for air. I put in about 3 inches of half dirt and half wet torn up newspaper and purchased redworms. I cover the scraps with dirt and also put a loose piece of plastic over the dirt to discourage insects. If I'm careful not to put in more food than the worms can eat before it molds, it doesn't smell or attract flies.   On How to start composting posted 1 year, 3 months ago 7 Responses

Fewer cars, more bicycles

In some cities in Europe, a wehicle which enters a city pays a tax.
Keeping cars out of the city would reduce idling fumes and make bicycling safer.

I should have the choice to bicycle, I help pay for the streets.
Leaving the Earth undamaged by my lifestyle is an important value to me.
Bicycling does not add greenhouse gases to the air like cars, and greenhouse gases are destroying many of Earth's resources.  
Bicycling is healthy exercise.
On Anti-bike crusader halts San Francisco's cycle-friendly plans posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses

media coverage

How many times has Grist reported: "Sen McCain said..., calls for..., etc." compared to how many times "Sen Obama said..., calls for...." Sometimes the louder more aggressive kid gets more attention. Just wondering if this is happening even to the best of all possible news sites.
On Visiting oil rig, McCain calls again for more offshore drilling posted 1 year, 3 months ago 1 Response

Subversion of science

We can preserve the beauty and bounty of nature so that our children's children can enjoy it or we can let Earth get toasted by continuing to burn fossil fuels instead of switching to alternatives like wind and solar. The science is new, most people did not learn it in school.  
For information about scientific consensus check out
'Ten popular myths about global climate change' at http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-ene ...
 US National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that the United Nations' IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. ... Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years"

For answers to why some people persist in claiming that the science is not settled see Union of Concerned Scientists at http://www.ucsusa.org/
An excerpt reads: "Despite the widespread agreement in the scientific community that human activity is contributing to global climate change, as demonstrated by the consensus of international experts on the IPCC, the Bush administration has sought to exaggerate uncertainty by relying on disreputable and fringe science reports and preventing informed discussion on the issue. As one current EPA scientist puts it, the Bush administration often "does not even invite the EPA into the discussion" on climate change issues."

Dr. Rosina Bierbaum, a Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), offers a disturbing window on the process. From the start, Bierbaum contends, "The scientists [who] knew the most about climate change at OSTP were not allowed to participate in deliberations on the issue within the White House inner circle." 23
Through such consistent tactics, the Bush administration has not only distorted scientific and technical analysis on global climate change and suppressed the dissemination of research results, but has avoided fashioning any policies that would significantly reduce the threat implied by those findings.

"It is not just a case of micromanagement, but really of censorship of government information,"

.On Journalists need to evaluate strength of scientific consensus posted 1 year, 3 months ago 31 Responses

Out of their mines

Pleease. Who profits from keeping miners in the mines??  The owners, ownly. Coal gassification is so last century.  Miners, mines' neighbors and shareholders would profit from leaving the coal in the ground and retraining the miners to  capture energy directly from sunlight by building solar photovoltaics, at union wages. On Blockbuster Teamsters announcement rejects oil drilling as an energy solution posted 1 year, 4 months ago 5 Responses

MESSAGE: NEW POWER

 .
Have you noticed that in the last few weeks the fossil fuel worshipers have been hammering away at a single message,  saying that the reason why gas prices are so high is because the Congress (read Democratic members)  refuse to allow drilling on certain environmentally protected areas in the US.   Against all reason, this message is taking on a life of its own, with repetition from many sources.  Explanations about how this is just ridiculous fall on deaf ears. Their message is simple, and repeatable.

It takes less time to say `Drill!'  than to explain why it's a bad idea.

So what is our simple, repeatable, undeniably true message?

NEW POWER for the 21st Century. We need a federal program to GET SOLAR, WIND OR GEOTHERMAL POWER FOR EVERY HOUSEHOLD!.
With modest support, less than we are borrowing for the war to protect US oil industry in Iraq, alternatives will provide all our electricity including more than enough to run electric vehicles WITHIN A COUPLE YEARS.  

BURNING FOSSIL FUEL IS so OLD SCHOOL, SO LAST CENTURY!
We will need to use oil for making plastics, for lubrication, for a gazillion things vital to our civilization.  It's UNBELIEVABLY WASTEFUL to burn it.  

The countries that realize this, and invest in NEW POWER  will become the economic leaders.   They will have free sunlight, free wind, free earth heat.  They will not have to buy fuel from anyone. Maybe that's what makes the fossilites so irritated; they won't be able to sell what their product, and other people will make more money.  

With American ingenuity and industry at the forefront, making the switch to alternatives, we will gain tons of great new jobs, stimulate the economy, improve our international security, and, of course, we will be doing what we have to do to stop the extreme weather from trashing our coastlines, riverbanks, forests,  and oceans.  So it's not a matter of moneyists versus environmentalists. Whether you worship the dollar or nature, we need the same thing, NEW POWER.

The fact that alternative energy is growing at leaps and bounds with tiny amounts of government support is testimony to their HUGE POTENTIAL and American intelligence. The strength of the fossil fuel industry's obstructionism is criminal, but so is the passivity of the informed American public.

Thanks for reading this.
On Should we question the patriotism of deniers? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 17 Responses

private ownership of common resources

Unregulated private ownership is like trying to get a dog to guard the barbecue, he'll take care of it all right, and there's not likely to be much left for us.
If we value SUSTAINABILITY of the biosphere, i.e. making sure that all the plants and creatures on Earth survive through our generation and indefinitely into the future;
AND if we value EQUAL RIGHTS among human beings to share in the resources of the Earth to meet their needs;
THEN we must REGULATE AND LIMIT the human drive to acquire power and money when it blocks the exercise of those values.
Most people agree that we should not let the living Earth be destroyed or allow some populations to starve while others feast. These are the end results of turning all decision making over to market forces.
How can we stop dollar-seeking from becoming a bloodthirsty idol? The protection of the common good through sustainability and human rights must be a constant reference point in the creation and administration of laws.
Make sure you have plenty of vegetables on the barbecue, and put Rover on a leash. On McCain just not that into Amtrak posted 1 year, 5 months ago 39 Responses

Alternative FUN

If there are no fireworks,
whatever are you going to do???.....?

Charades
Capture the flag
Find the constellations
Memory time tell stories about first job,first love,first bicycle,best vacation,proudest moment
Liars dice, poker, go fish, hearts,  
Squirt gun war or water balloons
Penny toss
Look at family photos, slides, videos
Listen to family musicians
Poem writing contest with red licorice prizes
Cherry seed spitting contest
Invite the neighbors
Dance
Read the Declaration of Independence
Declare how you will lower your carbon footprint
Eat pie, made of local fruit

LOVE THE 4TH OF JULY!!
On Umbra on fireworks posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

votes will tell

Rep David Wu's voting record on the environment is 100% pro-environment according to League of Conservation Voters.  
A bird in the hand is worth two in the Bush. On Republican Congressional candidate says main priority is energy reform posted 1 year, 5 months ago 8 Responses

ulterior motives

Read the whole article for a more complete picture. It seems that the parent company, that owns SDG&E, the power company, also owns a power plant and a liquified natural gas terminal just over the border in Mexico where environmental regulations are not as demanding, and that parent company wants to be able to get electricity into the US.
Maybe there are ulterior motives for trying to route transmission lines through the park, which is near the Mexican border.
If you live in the San Diego area, you will probably have an opportunity to help the Utilities Commission make a decision that benefits the public and also protects the environment.

 On Huge Calif. solar plant would run transmission lines through state park posted 1 year, 5 months ago 39 Responses

Not just Cheney

A number of members of Congress recently have given speeches where they hammer the false rationale that the refusal of Congress to allow enough drilling on US territory/offshore for oil and natural gas is the cause of high prices of fuel.
Real reasons for high cost of gasoline:
1. oil comanies gouging, and the Republicans have been fighting hard against a windfall profits tax to collect some of the oil companies' profits which have doubled in the last few years.
 2. of a decades old policy of large subsidies for  fossil fuels production and tiny amounts of  support for wind, solar, and geothermal which could provide cheaper cleaner electricity if they were allowed to compete fairly.
3. electric cars could now be the norm, if the Congress had not repeatedly voted against requiring auto and truck manufacturers to produce vehicles that get better mileage.  

Why are they taking this position that totally ignores the fact that continued use of fossil fuels is cooking our planet? (Sen Coburn R OK, Sen Allard R CO & others) The only problem this might solve is how to increase their campaign contributions. Also, maybe they really do need huge vehicles with tinted windows. On Cheney: 'Drill, drill, drill' posted 1 year, 5 months ago 12 Responses

Zephaniah

Running through the sprinkler and squirt gun battle and wetting down the sand in the sandbox to improve building potential were highlights of our backyard hot day experiences, involving no vinyl at all.   On Umbra on kiddie pools posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

Action!

What are you doing now to help Congress get information it needs to counter the arguments and distractions from the hired guns lobbyists  who will for sure be ready to try to kill any climate bill comes up again next year??

Although the Republican leadership short-circuited meaningful debate on solutions to the climate crisis, I was pleased to hear so many Senators last week  advocating immediate action to stop global warming. Fifteen years ago when I mentioned that burning fossil fuel was going to melt ice caps, raise sea levels and destroy our economy people looked at me like I had just escaped from an asylum.
Now a majority of the Senate has agreed that something needs to be done to reduce use of fossil fuels. Some Senators seemed well informed about the issues.

How is the environmental community doing in providing support for them??  Lots of environmental organzations have great websites with lots of facts, and different opinions are ricocheting around about what to do.
But I have not seen anything like a concerted effort to come to an agreement on best possilble recommendations or coordinated lobbying. ??Does it exist and I missed it?

If you couldn't watch C-SPAN last week, here is a taste of what I heard.  
Senator Kerry outlined the dire consequences of failing to reduce our carbon emission, emphasizing how the predictions of some years ago have already occurred much sooner than expected.
Sen Klobuchar talked about the need for nationwide standardization of data on carbon emissions. Sen Menendez said that the federal government should be required to calculate the costs of inaction on climate, in farming, forestry, insurence etc. Sen Lieberman emphasized the security threat of our dependence on foreign oil. Sen Durbin saying that we have to look at the economic cost of bringing steel half way around the world, and use the free market to let US entrepreneurial talent to get out in front of this problem.
Senator Sanders gave examples of successes in clean alternative sources of energy
So did Senator Baccus, talking about the growth of windpower in Montana.
From Colorado two different voices emerged. Sen Slazar advocated support for renewable energy (and carbon sequestration).  Sen Allard, on the other hand, questioned the science of global warming and the need to do anything different now!

Sen Boxer, who led the effort with an appropriate sense of urgency and excellent factual exhibits, said that if we wait for 100% certainty terrible things will happen, and that we are now at 99% certainty.
Waiting 2 years to act will double the rate at which we have to cut emissions.
She said we will be looking then at:
$422 billion in increased hurricane costs
$350 billion in increased insurance costs
$141 billion in increased energy costs
$950 billion in increased water costs
Also, what she said repeatedly was, if you disagree, what DO you think we should do?  

   On Climate Security Act dies, failing to muster enough votes to move forward posted 1 year, 5 months ago 18 Responses

lower cost of energy

To lower the cost of energy we need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, and allow their real cost to compete with clean solar, wind, and geothermal, which are actually cheaper if you spread the costs out over a couple decades.  And how long is that?  The time it takes for you to raise a kid to adulthood.

The fossil fuel industry hires people to defend their turf; lets not mistake those hired hands for representatives of the public interest, even they really want to see clean energy developed to stop the slide towards climatic caused economic catastrophe. On Conservative Christian group outraged that Congress is distracted by climate change posted 1 year, 5 months ago 12 Responses

European GH emissions up with cap and trade

European greenhouse gas emissions rose 1.19% last year despite cap and trade system for last 3 years.(WStJ 4/3/08) "National governments issued too many carbon permits - essentially a license to pollute - to regulated industries."  "Last year the value of carbon credits trded in Europe topped $40 billion."  "Campanies such as German utility EWE AG and steelmaker Arcelor Mittal are expected to be big buyers of carbon credits in the next phase of the scheme, and an increase in carbon prices could sharply boost their cost of complying with Europe's carbon-emissions caps." Wall St Journal 4/3/08 pg A9On How not to inform readers about cap-and-trade posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

Cap and delay

Before we get all excited about McCain's position here, let's remember that a cap and trade law is only as good as the administration that is defining it and enforcing it.  

The law would require that a cap, a limit, be set on how much CO2 can be emitted from large utilities that produce electricity.

Who sets that amount, the amount of the cap? That will be a huge issue. How long after they set the first cap, will they revise the cap to lower the emissions further?  
Even with a cap and trade law, European greenhouse gas emissions rose 1.1% last year partly because caps were set so low.

McCain says in his interview previously posted here that we would lower the emissions slowly. How slowly?!?  A cap and trade law can easily turn into an officially legislated barrier to timely steps against global warming.

 Delay has been the tactic of the Wall Street fossil fuel Republican consortium that has opposed national action that would have reduced the global warming in a timely way. We need to be sure we are not putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop

Who do we trust to take strong action to rein in the fossil fuel companies, to set emissions standards that actually reduce the amount of carbon dioxide instead of letting it increase freely, as has happened during the last eight years.

Do we trust the party that allows fossil fuel corporations to write energy law? Do we trust the party that has kept the Environmental Protection Agency from publishing scientific findings about global warming; and that changed conclusions on reports about the climate  to make it look like the situation does not require action? Do we trust the party that promised eight years ago to cap emissions from power plants and then did nothing? Do we trust the party that filled civil service positions around the country with people who had demonstrated ultra-conservative allegiance?  Do we trust the party that has for decades been claiming that global warming is a liberal hoax?

Is this the party that we want to have advising our President on how to set caps on greenhouse gas emissions?  Let's not be fooled by rhetoric, especially from the same group that gave us compassionate conservativism and lowered the living standard for the least affluent members of our society, that gave us a war on terror which substantially increased the strength and numbers of the terrorist organizations, that gave us lower taxes but shrank the value of the dollars so everything costs more!  
On Enviros respond to McCain's new climate plan posted 1 year, 6 months ago 12 Responses

Biofuel lessons?

Biofuels are contributing to food shortages worldwide.

Do other environmentalists feel as I do that we missed that call, badly?

Was this foreseeable? We know about limits on water and soil resources. We know how many people worldwide are on the razor edge of hunger. We know that biofuels use fertilizer, irrigation, tractors, energy to process and transport it, thus raising the demand and therefore price for these items.

I heard people justify support for biofuels, saying they would be a good stopgap measure that would demonstrate that alternatives can work.  As billions of dollars of investment capital poured into biofuels, it seemed that corporate America was participating in the green revolution.

Did we really analyze the relative carbon output of biofuels, considering the energy costs of production and the forests being cleared to produce pulp? Or did we just take the corporate desire to greenwash their reputations and encourage biofuels because corporations were more willing to market an ownable fuel, than free sunlight?

Should the environmental community have handled this  differently????On With food riots raging, let's open the books on the finances of Big Ag posted 1 year, 7 months ago 21 Responses

Nader not green

Nader has not worked for sustainability. His life's work has been making consumerism safer, arguing for fair prices and safe products while American consumers, energy hogs of the world, lead the way to biosphere meltdown.

Climate stabilization has to be our first priority. Anything we do that keeps fossil fuel supporters in power is cutting the threads of the web of life.

Nader should not run for president and pull support away form the democratic candidates with a realistic chance of winning.On Ralph Nader announces his presidential run, calls for carbon tax posted 1 year, 9 months ago 23 Responses