Climate Change Has Run Its Course - WSJ

By 

Steven F. Hayward

June 4, 2018 6:54 p.m. ET

1444 COMMENTS

Climate change is over. No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers.

Judged by deeds rather than words, most national governments are backing away from forced-marched decarbonization. You can date the arc of climate change as a policy priority from 1988, when highly publicized congressional hearings first elevated the issue, to 2018. President Trump’s ostentatious withdrawal from the Paris Agreement merely ratified a trend long becoming evident.

A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding” pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’ ” Another is Sarah Myhre’s address at the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.

The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm—a blaring noise people are tuning out.

This outcome was predictable. Political scientist Anthony Downs described the downward trajectory of many political movements in an article for the Public Interest, “Up and Down With Ecology: The ‘Issue-Attention Cycle,’ ” published in 1972, long before the climate-change campaign began. Observing the movements that had arisen to address issues like crime, poverty and even the U.S.-Soviet space race, Mr. Downs discerned a five-stage cycle through which political issues pass regularly.

The first stage involves groups of experts and activists calling attention to a public problem, which leads quickly to the second stage, wherein the alarmed media and political class discover the issue. The second stage typically includes a large amount of euphoric enthusiasm—you might call it the “dopamine” stage—as activists conceive the issue in terms of global peril and salvation. This tendency explains the fanaticism with which divinity-school dropouts Al Gore and Jerry Brown have warned of climate change.

Then comes the third stage: the hinge. As Mr. Downs explains, there soon comes “a gradually spreading realization that the cost of ‘solving’ the problem is very high indeed.” That’s where we’ve been since the United Nations’ traveling climate circus committed itself to the fanatical mission of massive near-term reductions in fossil fuel consumption, codified in unrealistic proposals like the Kyoto Protocol. This third stage, Mr. Downs continues, “becomes almost imperceptibly transformed into the fourth stage: a gradual decline in the intensity of public interest in the problem.”

While opinion surveys find that roughly half of Americans regard climate change as a problem, the issue has never achieved high salience among the public, despite the drumbeat of alarm from the climate campaign. Americans have consistently ranked climate change the 19th or 20th of 20 leading issues on the annual Pew Research Center poll, while Gallup’s yearly survey of environmental issues typically ranks climate change far behind air and water pollution.

“In the final stage,” Mr. Downs concludes, “an issue that has been replaced at the center of public concern moves into a prolonged limbo—a twilight realm of lesser attention or spasmodic recurrences of interest.” Mr. Downs predicted correctly that environmental issues would suffer this decline, because solving such issues involves painful trade-offs that committed climate activists would rather not make.

A case in point is climate campaigners’ push for clean energy, whereas they write off nuclear power because it doesn’t fit their green utopian vision. A new study of climate-related philanthropy by Matthew Nisbet found that of the $556.7 million green-leaning foundations spent from 2011-15, “not a single grant supported work on promoting or reducing the cost of nuclear energy.” The major emphasis of green giving was “devoted to mobilizing public opinion and to opposing the fossil fuel industry.”

Scientists who are genuinely worried about the potential for catastrophic climate change ought to be the most outraged at how the left politicized the issue and how the international policy community narrowed the range of acceptable responses. Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme transformed the issue into a political creed for committed believers. Causes that live by politics, die by politics.

Mr. Hayward is a senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

Submitted by Jim Wagner

Climate change, the latest scientific view: its still real

The serious issues regarding climate (warming) change are real.  That does not negate the need to resolve outstanding questions.

The Daily Journal/Associated Press/Seth Borenstein, 2/27/14.  "Science academies explain global warming reality." 

....  "The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, which is the national scientific academy of the United Kingdom, are releasing an unusual plain language report on climate change that addressed 20 issues in a question-and-answer format.

Humans !

....  The report said that while the rate of warming is slower in the 2000s than it was in the 1990s it doesn’t negate the 150 years of observations that show the world is warming. The report also says that more the 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases lately has been absorbed into the oceans’ deep water, which for a while slows surface warming but not the long-term trend.

 ....  “We’ve changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere; that’s not a belief system. We know that beyond shadow of a doubt,” Santer said in an interview. “We ignore this at our peril."  Read more.

Reference -  National Academies of Sciences/News, 2/27/14.  News Release:  "U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.K. Royal Society Release Joint Publication on Climate Change," as follows:

"The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, the national science academy of the U.K., released a joint publication today in Washington, D.C., that explains the clear evidence that humans are causing the climate to change, and that addresses a variety of other key questions commonly asked about climate change science.  “As two of the world’s leading scientific bodies, we feel a responsibility to evaluate and explain what is known about climate change, at least the physical side of it, to concerned citizens, educators, decision makers and leaders, and to advance public dialogue about how to respond to the threats of climate change,” said NAS President Ralph J. Cicerone. “Our aim with this new resource is to provide people with easy access to the latest scientific evidence on climate change, including where scientists agree and where uncertainty still remains,” added Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society.  "We have enough evidence to warrant action being taken on climate change; it is now time for the public debate to move forward to discuss what we can do to limit the impact on our lives and those of future generations."

Climate Change: Evidence and Causes, written and reviewed by leading experts in both countries, lays out which aspects of climate change are well-understood, and where there is still uncertainty and a need for more research.  

Carbon dioxide (CO2) has risen to levels not seen for at least 800,000 years, and observational records dating back to the mid-19th century show a clear, long-term warming trend.  The publication explains that measurements that distinguish between the different forms of carbon in the atmosphere provide clear evidence that the increased amount of CO2 comes primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels, and discusses why the warming that has occurred along with the increase in CO2 cannot be explained by natural causes such as variations in the sun’s output.

The publication delves into other commonly asked questions about climate change, for example, what the slower rate of warming since the very warm year in 1998 means, and whether and how climate change affects the strength and frequency of extreme weather events.

Many effects of climate change have already become apparent in the observational record, but the possible extent of future impacts needs to be better understood.  For example, while average global sea levels have risen about 8 inches (20 cm) since 1901, and are expected to continue to rise, more research is needed to more accurately predict the size of future sea-level rise.  In addition, the chemical balance of the oceans has shifted toward a more acidic state, which makes it difficult for organisms such as corals and shellfish to form and maintain their shells.  As the oceans continue to absorb CO2, their acidity will continue to increase over the next century, along with as yet undetermined impacts on marine ecosystems and the food web.  Even if greenhouse gas emissions were to suddenly stop, it would take thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to its levels before the industrial era.  If emissions continue unabated, future climate changes will substantially exceed those that have occurred so far, the publication says.

The authoring committee offers this brief explanation of the science of climate change to help inform policy debates about the choices available to nations and the global community for reducing the magnitude of climate change and adapting to its impacts.  The publication is available to download for free at www.nap.edu and as an interactive website at http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/.  The project was sponsored by the Raymond and Beverly Sackler U.S.-U.K. Scientific Forum.  The National Academy of Sciences is a private, independent nonprofit institution that provides science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter granted to NAS in 1863.  For more information, visit http://national-academies.org. The Royal Society is a self-governing fellowship of many of the world’s most distinguished scientists drawn from all areas of science, engineering, and medicine. The society’s fundamental purpose, reflected in its founding charters of the 1660s, is to recognize, promote, and support excellence in science and to encourage the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity.  For further information, visit http://royalsociety.org.  Contacts:  William Kearney, Director of Media Relations, National Academy of Sciences, 202-334-2138; e-mail news@nas.edu.  Chloe McIvor, Press Officer,The Royal Society,020 7451 2514; e-mail chloe.mcivor@royalsociety.org."

Note:  graphic from British Council/Schools Online, MAPS - Carbon footprint radio show.  Some paragraphs in the Reference News Release (above) have been combined to take-up less space.

Posted by Kathy Meeh

Candidate Questionnaire: Climate change mitigation measures could have a large impact on Pacifica homeowners and businesses. What are your thoughts on this topic?

The Pacifica Chamber of Commerce submitted 12 questions to each of the candidates for Pacifica City Council. Every week we will be posting two questions, and the answers from each of the candidates.


Question 10: Climate change mitigation measures could have a large impact on Pacifica homeowners and businesses. What are your thoughts on this topic?


Karen Ervin - 4 Year Seat

I appreciate that the proposed Climate Action Plan provides an opportunity to engage the community regarding the effects of global warming and addresses how we can work together to reduce green house gas emissions. I am not supportive of the point of sale ordinances in the plan; the residential/commercial energy conservation ordinance (RECO/CECO), which requires installation of energy efficient measures to be completed when your house is sold based on the sale price of your home. Many people selling their homes today have little equity and will have a difficult time absorbing the costs of this ordinance. In addition, some sellers will have to also purchase sewer lateral replacements as mandated by the city of Pacifica at the same time. There is also a proposed general plan change that would mandate that homeowners in areas of Linda Mar and Sharp Park prove that their homes can handle sea level rise before carrying out renovations to their property. I believe the best way forward is to make a recommendation and to encourage improvements to property rather than add another mandated cost, and that we should continue to engage the public regarding ways to reduce green house gas emissions.

Mary Ann Nihart - 4 Year Seat

AB32 is state law and places on the cities the burden of developing their own Climate Action Plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The volunteers who worked on the Climate Action Plan did a commendable job of pulling together a significant set of recommendations to address those requirements. Most of the plan is made of good suggestions, especially those that involve public education. There are some areas that will need adjustment. Choice of ordinances will need to be balanced with consideration for economic hardship and maximum gain. One major issue, that I have already shared publicly, concerns “point of sale.” Recently we had to enact a “point of sale” for scoping, repairing or replacing sewer laterals which was required by a consent decree with the Regional Water quality Board. This “point of sale” is in its infancy and there have been some problems. Until these are resolved I cannot support another “point of sale” requirement.


Susan Vellone - 4 Year Seat 

A thoughtful and long term plan should be analyzed and implemented for homeowners and businesses. Our coastal community needs to protect itself from the possibility of sea levels rising and creating harmful erosion that will damage valuable properties. Managed retreat, conditional occupancy land rights, and compensation need to be evaluated. As a Councilwoman, I will actively engage and educate myself for the benefit of our City.

Mike O'Neill - 2 Year Seat

Climate change is real and we need to do what we can locally however I think we need to be realistic and thoughtful to what is economically feasible. Green building ordinances are good but we need to be careful that we do not stifle the growth we need. Theodore Roosevelt said, “ Conservation means development as much as it means development”.


Rich Campbell - 2 Year Seat

Many of the proposals make sense, but I would not propose a green building upgrade at point of sale in light of current economy.


Victor Spano - 2 Year Seat

I am running as an Economic Development Candidate. By having more variety of retail outlets in Pacifica, commuter trips to other jurisdictions will be reduced. By virtue of the fact that there are 45-50 empty stores, the market demonstrates that new retail development over and above existing supply is not that feasible at this time. Fill those stores with new enterprises and there would be a beneficial effect in many senses. I have reviewed the Draft Climate Change Plan and think that it is an outstanding document except where it may inhibit Economic Development, in this sense, I don’t agree with all points, but many are beneficial without a doubt. The science behind so called Climate Change is evolving. We should look at mitigation measure carefully, so that the impacts do not wind up killing off projects or proposals for new businesses. I am for an evolving and finalized Climate Change Plan that responds to the Pacifica business community and does not create obstacles for it.


Gary Mondfrans - 2 Year Seat

Climate change will have an impact upon all coastal area not only on a national but worldwide scale and may be part and parcel of a natural trend or the irreversible end product of the burning of coal first documented by the early blackouts of London. In either case Pacifica must have special planning concerns in low-lying areas; areas subject to tidal erosion aggravated by the El Niño and La Niña weather cycles; areas subject to salt-water intrusion which may erode or leach toxic chemicals into our water supply and/or otherwise undermine the entire underground piping structure. Communities like Pacifica should establish a close collaboration with Federal agencies and other research institutions in order to better assist with pre-planning and be in the forefront of disaster planning and assistance.

Climate change is not the only significant environment issue which Pacifica must address. Pacifica lies in the Pacific Creep Zone and is very seismically active; the San Andreas Fault roughly parallels Skyline, known sinkhole, some of which have been allowed to become developed lie within that fault zone; major water tanks and pipelines may be impacted by a seismic incident; and there are many variously known and hypothesized faults lying just miles off-shore any one of which has the potential to create a tsunami. Preparation for this is just as urgent, and I fear,at present is far from adequate.

Reporter Butler's Trib article

Pacifica Climate Group: Keep Studying Sharp Park
BY IAN BUTLER Special to the Tribune

The Pacifica Climate Committee, a citizens group working since 2007 to study the local impact of climate change, has written to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and Recreation and Park Department, urging them to “commit to long-term planning for the impacts of sea level rise and climate change on Sharp Park, and delay any planning decisions regarding Sharp Park until such planning is complete...The recently released Sharp Park Conceptual Restoration Alternatives Report omitted any analysis of sea-level rise and climate change impacts...therefore, the scope of this report is too narrow upon which to base long-term planning decisions.” The letter is dated December 21, 2009, and signed by Committee member Cynthia Kaufman.

The committee has been involved in climate change-related activities in Pacifica, such as creating an inventory of Pacifica’s non-municipal greenhouse gas emissions, celebrating International Climate Action Day on October 24, developing a “low-carbon diet,” and hosting the Community Climate Forum at Council Chambers on June 18, which featured Assemblymember Jerry Hill and then-Mayor Julie Lancelle.

Councilmember Lancelle was surprised that the City of Pacifica, which has been working with the committee, was not sent a copy of the committee's letter. She pointed out that “the City Council approved the formation of a Pacifica Climate Action Plan Task Force at the request of members of the Pacifica Climate Committee...Without a doubt, we are very concerned about the long-term effects of climate change.” The city is conducting interviews for the task force this week.

Dawn Kamalanathan, planning director of San Francisco Rec & Park, which prepared the alternatives report, echoes those sentiments. “The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department is absolutely interested in and committed to exploring the long-term impacts of sea rise on Sharp Park.” Dawn stated in an email response to the Pacifica Climate Committee letter, “Our intent is to conduct this exploration in full partnership with the County of San Mateo and City of Pacifica, as the potential impacts of sea rise on that region extend beyond the boundaries of Sharp Park.”

But at Pacifica Council Chambers on December 11, David Munro, one of the lead authors of the Rec & Park report, indicated that the report focused primarily on helping the highly endangered San Francisco garter snake recover in the short term. He said, “We’re looking at a planning horizon that takes into account events that will happen before sea level rise becomes too significant.”

For Celeste Langille, Pacifica planning commissioner and Climate Committee member, more long-term planning is needed. “You need to do all the analysis before you decide on a course of action,” she said. “Because the alternatives haven’t been studied, I don’t know what would be better for flooding for the neighborhoods. That’s why there needs to be planning for 50 to 100 years out.” Although the Rec & Park report included a no-golf alternative, a 9-hole alternative, and its preferred 18-hole alternative, it chose not to evaluate the feasibility of phasing out the levee or turning the property over to the National Park Service and GGNRA.

A separate study done by ARUP International, an engineering firm, looked at the condition of the levee. It recommended repairs costing between $6 million and $14 million, and requiring annual maintenance of 1 percent of initial cost. It estimated such repairs would result in “low to very low vulnerability to overtopping or breach” for 50 years.

Bob Battalio, Pacifica hydrologist and coastal engineer who helped develop the FEMA Pacific coast flood study guidelines, estimates that an effective long-term levee repair could cost closer to $30 million, and would not necessarily help. He said, “The risk of flooding from rainfall runoff is greater than the risk of flooding from the ocean. Therefore, the levee is counterproductive.”

Battalio has offered to help develop an alternative plan. “I think we can develop a plan that is sustainable, can enhance endangered species habitat, maintain our beach, and can even allow golf for at least the next few decades. Unfortunately, the existing plan has fundamental flaws inconsistent with better solutions.” He fears it would endanger the very species it is designed to protect. “Their plan places salt-sensitive species right behind the levee where they are at risk from saltwater overtopping and groundwater intrusion.”

Lancelle said she would welcome an informational meeting with Battalio, perhaps along with Councilmember Jim Vreeland, who she said is “very well versed in coastal planning.” But she urged that “the long-term planning effort should not delay what needs to be done soon to maintain the coastal trail and golf course at Sharp Park and, most important, protect the endangered species habitat there.”

Unfortunately, the City of Pacifica has its hands full. As Commissioner Langille put it, “Pacifica has a lot of coastal planning to do besides the golf course. Just look at Esplanade.”

Is this a news report by a reporter or a column?

Mine, and a few others concern about this article is that is was not labeled as an opinion piece, which it cleary is. The Tribune continues to become nothing more than a birdcage liner and has about as much credibility as Pravda did in the 1980's. A local newspaper should really focus more on news and not become a weekly forum for those who clearly won't let the facts and the truth get in their way to take away the recreation choice of thousands.

One quote that did catch my eye: From Bob Battalio
“Their plan places salt-sensitive species right behind the levee where they are at risk from saltwater overtopping and groundwater intrusion.”
If Plater and his crew really want to restore this area to dunes and wetlands, and take the sea wall down as they say, won't the "salt sensitive species" be worse off? At least now the snakes and frogs are not in danger from salt water intrusion.

Wall Street Journal - Climate Forecast: Muting the Alarm

By

Matt Ridley 
March 27, 2014 7:24 p.m. ET

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will shortly publish the second part of its latest report, on the likely impact of climate change. Government representatives are meeting with scientists in Japan to sex up—sorry, rewrite—a summary of the scientists' accounts of storms, droughts and diseases to come. But the actual report, known as AR5-WGII, is less frightening than its predecessor seven years ago.

The 2007 report was riddled with errors about Himalayan glaciers, the Amazon rain forest, African agriculture, water shortages and other matters, all of which erred in the direction of alarm. This led to a critical appraisal of the report-writing process from a council of national science academies, some of whose recommendations were simply ignored. 

Others, however, hit home. According to leaks, this time the full report is much more cautious and vague about worsening cyclones, changes in rainfall, climate-change refugees, and the overall cost of global warming. 

It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century. This is vastly less than the much heralded prediction of Lord Stern, who said climate change would cost 5%-20% of world GDP in his influential 2006 report for the British government.

The forthcoming report apparently admits that climate change has extinguished no species so far and expresses "very little confidence" that it will do so. There is new emphasis that climate change is not the only environmental problem that matters and on adapting to it rather than preventing it. Yet the report still assumes 70% more warming by the last decades of this century than the best science now suggests. This is because of an overreliance on models rather than on data in the first section of the IPCC report—on physical science—that was published in September 2013.

Read more...

Submitted by Jim Wagner

Climate warming may be less severe than expected

In nice to see an alternative argument to "Global Warming/Climate Change".  Somewhat lengthy article link, but informative.  

The Wall Street Journal, 12/18/12.  "Matt Ridley:  Cooling down the fears of climate change."  Evidence points to a further rise of just 1 degree Celsius by 2100.  The net effect on the planet may actually be beneficial.

Earth toasting depends upon water vapor    

"Forget the Doha climate jamboree that ended earlier this month. The theological discussions in Qatar of the arcana of climate treaties are irrelevant. By far the most important debate about climate change is taking place among scientists, on the issue of climate sensitivity: How much warming will a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide actually produce? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has to pronounce its answer to this question in its Fifth Assessment Report next year.

 The general public is not privy to the IPCC debate. But I have been speaking to somebody who understands the issues: Nic Lewis. A semiretired successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background, Mr. Lewis has made significant contributions to the subject of climate change."  Read article.  Note:  picture by David Gothard from the article

Submitted with comments by Jim Wagner

Posted by Kathy Meeh

McNider and Christy: Why Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate Change

Contrary to many pronouncements, climate changer/global warming is not a proven science by any measure.

Jim Wagner

It was the scientific skeptics who bucked the 'consensus' and said the Earth was round.

By Richard McNider And John Christy

Updated Feb. 19, 2014 7:31 p.m. ET

In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the "Flat Earth Society" for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, "We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists" and "extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts."

But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today's scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?

 

Most of us who are skeptical about the dangers of climate change actually embrace many of the facts that people like Bill Nye, the ubiquitous TV "science guy," say we ignore. The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.

What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth's atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.

Read more...

Submitted by Jim Wagner

Mother Earth Day "Green Cities", today, every year, April 22, 2014

United Nations, International Mother Earth Day, 22 April.  "Earth Day 2014: Green Cities."

"Earth Day 2014 will focus on green cities, mobilizing a millions of people to create a sustainable, healthy environment by greening communities worldwide. Today, more than half of the world’s population lives in cities. As the urban population grows and the effects of climate change worsen, our cities have to evolve.  It’s time for us to invest in efficiency and renewable energy, rebuild our cities and towns, and begin to solve the climate crisis. Over the next two years, with a focus on Earth Day 2014, the Green Cities campaign will mobilize a global movement to accelerate this transition. Join us in calling for a new era of green cities.

Mother Earth is a common expression for the planet Earth in a number of countries and regions, which reflects the interdependence that exists among human beings, other living species and the planet. For instance, Bolivians call Mother Earth Pachamama and Nicaraguans refer to her as Tonantzin.  Recognizing that Mother Earth reflects the interdependence that exists among human beings, other living species and the planet we all inhabit, the General Assembly declared 22 April as International Mother Earth Day (A/RES/63/278).

Honoring "green cities", and not me?
Wait till I tell my friends.

The Green Cities Campaign.  The Green Cities Campaign helps cities and communities around the world accelerate their transition to a more sustainable future. More information.  Get involved with Earth Day! Every year on April 22, over a billion people in 190 countries take action for Earth Day. From San Francisco to San Juan, Beijing to Brussels, Moscow to Marrakesh, people plant trees, clean up their communities, contact their elected officials, and more—all on behalf of the environment. Like Earth Days of the past, Earth Day 2014 will focus on the unique environmental challenges of our time. As the world’s population migrates to cities, and as the bleak reality of climate change becomes increasingly clear, the need to create sustainable communities is more important than ever. Earth Day 2014 will seek to do just that through its global theme: Green Cities. With smart

636 × 474 - miriameaglemon.com

investments in sustainable technology, forward-thinking public policy, and an educated and active public, we can transform our cities and forge a sustainable future. Nothing is more powerful than the collective action of a billion people.As the global organizer behind Earth Day, Earth Day Network creates tools and resources for you to get involved with Earth Day in your community. Here’s how you can participate.

Get involved with Earth Day! Every year on April 22, over a billion people in 190 countries take action for Earth Day. From San Francisco to San Juan, Beijing to Brussels, Moscow to Marrakesh, people plant trees, clean up their communities, contact their elected officials, and more—all on behalf of the environment. Like Earth Days of the past, Earth Day 2014 will focus on the unique environmental challenges of our time. As the world’s population migrates to cities, and as the bleak reality of climate change becomes increasingly clear, the need to create sustainable communities is more important than ever. Earth Day 2014 will seek to do just that through its global theme: Green Cities. With smart investments in sustainable technology, forward-thinking public policy, and an educated and active public, we can transform our cities and forge a sustainable future. Nothing is more powerful than the collective action of a billion people. As the global organizer behind Earth Day, Earth Day Network creates tools and resources for you to get involved with Earth Day in your community. Here’s how you can participate." 

 

Related - Earth Day Network, includes "Earth Day 2014: Green Cities", 1:01 minutes, and other videos."Our planet is at a turning point. The massive global migration underway now from countryside to cities will demand huge investments in energy, water, materials, waste, food distribution, and transportation over the next 25 years. If the right investments are made now, this unique opportunity will be the catalyst for dramatic changes in the built environment and the fight against carbon emissions and climate change."Today, more than half of the world’s population lives in cities. As the urban population grows and the effects of climate change worsen, our cities have to evolve.It’s time for us to invest in efficiency and renewable energy, rebuild our cities and towns, and begin to solve the climate crisis. Over the next two years, with a focus on Earth Day 2014, the Green Cities campaign will mobilize a global movement to accelerate this transition. Join us in calling for a new era of green cities."

 

Note: Plover picture from Mary Beth Stowe's website.

 

Posted by Kathy Meeh

It's time to address climate change

Pacifica Tribune/Letters to the Editor, 9/23/16.

"Managed retreat" alternative. 

"Climate change now" by Amy Lynn Caplan

"Dear Editor, While our community debates about the library, the quarry, a hotel near the pier, and dozens of other issues, let’s get real.

Abrupt climate change is happening now. The long-term big picture needs to be brought to the forefront: drought, fresh water supply, sea level rise, stronger storms, undergrounding wires to prevent multi-day power outages, erosion, mudslides, trees dying, carbon sequestering, ocean acidification, ocean anoxia (deoxygenation) and the sixth mass extinction. In 30 years, fresh water and food will be critical issues. Let’s start discussing this now."

------------
Note photograph from flatplanet, "Definition and Effects of Climate Change."  Choice of framing and photograph by the article poster.

Posted by Kathy Meeh

Global warming vs. world economic recession

Science, ideology, and immediate capital interests-- who wins?  

Global warming doesn't exist, really!

From The New York Times/Science, 12/7/11.  "Global warming has become perhaps the most complicated issue facing world leaders. Warnings from the scientific community are becoming louder, as an increasing body of science points to rising dangers from the ongoing buildup of human-related greenhouse gases — produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels and forests. Global emissions of carbon dioxide jumped by the largest amount on record in 2010, upending the notion that the brief decline during the recession might persist through the recovery. Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to an analysis by the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of scientists. The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that scientists fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall severe climate change in coming decades. However, the technological, economic and political issues that have to be resolved before a concerted worldwide effort to reduce emissions can begin have gotten no simpler, particularly in the face of a global economic slowdown.

I'm resting my brain, thank you.

For almost two decades, the United Nations has sponsored global talks, known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, an international treaty signed by 194 countries in 1992 to cooperatively discuss global climate change and its impact. The conferences operate on the principle of consensus, meaning that any of the participating nations can hold up an agreement. In recent years, the meetings have often ended in disillusionment. The conflicts and controversies discussed are monotonously familiar: the differing obligations of industrialized and developing nations, the question of who will pay to help poor nations adapt, the urgency of protecting tropical forests and the need to rapidly develop and deploy clean energy technology.

At this year’s meeting, which began on Nov. 28, delegates from 194 nations gathered in Durban, South Africa, to try to advance, if only incrementally, the world’s response to intensifying climate disasters. But expectations were low. The negotiating process itself has been under fire from some quarters, including the poorest nations who believe their needs are being neglected in the fight among the major economic powers. Criticism has also come from a relatively small but vocal band of climate-change skeptics, many of them sitting members of the United States Congress, who doubt the existence of human influence on the climate and ridicule international efforts to deal with it. But scientists warned that the squabbling served only to delay actions that must be taken to reduce climate-altering emissions and to improve vulnerable nations’ ability to respond to the changes they say are surely coming."  Read much more.. its the New York times after all.

Reference cross-check
"Global warming is not slowing down",  Science News 12/5/11
For the ultra savvy, and  those who don't read.  ABC News, 4/22/09 video

Posted by Kathy Meeh

An alternative point of view on climate change

Some of you may think I'm a denier. To some extent, they're correct in that assumption. If you try to do any research you find info so contradictory to each other that it makes me wonder if we're looking at the same planet. Powerfull images make a case for calamity. Visually impressive, but if you don't read both sides and just looked at these pictures you'd be a believer in climate disaster too.
I guess you could call me a climate "skepticalier".

Jim Wagner


UN Panel: Warming worsens food, hunger problems

By SETH BORENSTEIN

— Mar. 31, 2014 5:25 AM EDT

YOKOHAMA, Japan (AP) — Global warming makes feeding the world harder and more expensive, a United Nations scientific panel said.

A warmer world will push food prices higher, trigger "hotspots of hunger" among the world's poorest people, and put the crunch on Western delights like fine wine and robust coffee, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in a 32-volume report issued Monday.

"We're facing the specter of reduced yields in some of the key crops that feed humanity," panel chairman Rajendra Pachauri said in press conference releasing the report.

Even though heat and carbon dioxide are often considered good for plants, the overall effect of various aspects of man-made warming is that it will reduce food production compared to a world without global warming, the report said.

The last time the panel reported on the effects of warming in 2007, it said it was too early to tell whether climate change would increase or decrease food production, and many skeptics talked of a greening world. But in the past several years the scientific literature has been overwhelming in showing that climate change hurts food production, said Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution of Science and lead author of the climate report.

Read more...

More King Tides in our future

The Daily Journal/Samantha Weigel, 11/25/15.  "Officials: King Tides are the future of the coast."

Could have been a nice walk along Beach Boulevard

The start of the annual King Tides prompted county officials, environmental experts and coastal activists to gather Tuesday morning at areas where San Mateo County is most vulnerable to sea level rise.  King Tides, which occur when the sun and moon align creating a more powerful gravitational pull, were reported to have washed much further ashore along the coast and in parts of the San Francisco Bay.

....  “The King Tides are gong to be an indicator of what exactly it’s going to be like in the future — King Tides are going to be the new norm and are going to have even more destructive power than today,” said Supervisor Don Horsley while watching the waves crash at Surfer’s Beach on the coast. “We’re looking at ways of being more resilient, protecting the coast and adapting to the future. This King Tide is a look into the future.”

The county is in the midst of yearlong study to determine what assets are vulnerable to sea level rise through a special task force dedicated to collaborating on preparing for the future of climate change. Surrounded by both a bayfront and coastal zone, San Mateo County has been deemed the most vulnerable in the state when it comes to sea level rise, said Hilary Papendick, climate resiliency specialist with the county’s Office of Sustainability. .... This year’s King Tides are also exacerbated by El Niño as the expanded warmer waters account for about a half-foot increase.  Read more.

Related,  Climate Central/John Upton, 10/30/15, ".... Paris Agreement could put leash around global warming."  There is a month remaining before a critical two-week U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change begins in Paris. Following years of talks, most of the world’s governments have announced the pledges that they plan to offer under the hoped-for Paris climate pact, even as the draft agreement continues to take shape.... .Developed countries, such as the U.S., and those in the European Union, pledged to reduce rates of greenhouse gas pollution by specific amounts in the coming years. Others, such as China, vowed to end the yearly increases in their annual pollution rates within chosen timeframes. Some countries simply listed the policies that they plan to enact to help address climate change. Policies included in many of the pledges also covered efforts to adapt to a warming world." 

Note: photograph by Dae R./Flickr from the related Climate Central article.

Posted by Kathy Meeh