Roger Ebert On Climate Change

Ebert: “I have watched with a kind of petrified fascination in recent years as the world creeps closer to what looks to me like disastrous climate change.”

Roger Ebert, the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize, died yesterday from cancer at the age of 70. He had remained astonishingly prolific even after complications from surgery in 2006 left him unable to speak.

Ebert had become the most famous and perhaps most influential film critic in the country thanks to the popular TV series, Sneak Previews, originally launched with rival critic Gene Siskel.

You may not be aware that Ebert was also a strong progressive voice, as Think Progress relates in its piece, “The Five Best Things Roger Ebert Said About Politics.”

Shortly before he died, Ebert posted a piece about global warming, “New seasons with new names.”  Here is an extended excerpt from that piece, with the image that accompanied it:

I have watched with a kind of petrified fascination in recent years as the world creeps closer to what looks to me like disastrous climate change. The poles are melting. Ocean levels are rising. The face of the planet is torn by unprecedented natural disasters. States of emergency have become so routine that governors always seem to be proclaiming one. Do they have drafts of proclamations on file?
The political responses to this condition seem to fall along party lines. Democrats think legislation is needed Republicans don’t want the feds interfering with private enterprise. Vested interests weigh in. Pork barrel projects are protected by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Washington fiddles. Earth burns.

I get stirred up more than many people, because I see so many documentaries. Yes, they’re “biased.” There’s much less motivation for an “unbiased” documentary. Docs are usually made by people who have something they think you should know. There is little motivation for objectivity, something people forget when yet another doc comes along. And there are so many causes! Genetically modified crops! Chemical fertilizers! Trademarked genomes! The downside to wind power! An explosive-blowing doc like Chasing Ice comes along, and hardly causes a stir.

I write an entry. It rounds up the usual comments. We’re stuck. Just today, however, a glimmer of hope shone on the political front. I read on Bloomberg:

“President Barack Obama is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they should consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects, from pipelines to highways.”

“Consider.” Not the most electrifying word I can imagine. Yet consider the response. I read on: “It’s got us very freaked out,” said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, a Washington-based group that represents 11,000 companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Southern Co. The standards, which constitute guidance for agencies and not new regulations, are set to be issued in the coming weeks, according to lawyers briefed by administration officials.

“Freaked out.” You know what has me freaked out? I consider it a real possibility that millions now living will die as a result of the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers and its 11,000 members….

This time the enemy, if we can use the word in this context, is an American lobbyist group. They seem focused on maximizing profits and shareholder benefits, at the cost of any environmental conscience. It seems possible that their policies will lead to a different kind of seasonal calendar. Instead of Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall, this new generation will know Blizzard, Flood, Heat and Fire. Month follows month as the seasons tear themselves apart.

Roger Ebert will be missed.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Idaho Science Teacher Is Under Investigation For Teaching About Climate Change And Orgasms

A 10th grade science teacher in Idaho is being investigated by his school after parents complained that he included the word “vagina” in his lessons, taught the class about the female orgasm, and showed Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Some of the allegations are more serious, including that “he shared confidential student files with an individual other than their parents,” and “told inappropriate jokes in class,” but science teacher Tim McDaniel suspects that the complaints originated because of his discussions about issues considered controversial in the largely Mormon community where he teaches:

“I teach straight out of the textbook, I don’t include anything that the textbook doesn’t mention,” McDaniel said. “But I give every student the option not attend this class when I teach on the reproductive system if they don’t feel comfortable with the material.”

The science teacher said he has taught Dietrich’s science classes for the past 18 years without receiving a complaint from parents or students.

According to McDaniel, the commission is also investigating a complaint that accuses him of using school property to promote a political candidate. The complaint was because he showed the climate change film “An Inconvenient Truth,” also in his science class.

McDaniel said he includes the film to spark a discussion on climate change among the students. After watching the film, he asks students to write a response paper explaining their thoughts on climate change.

Idaho is a state that has no requirement for sex education and no mandated HIV education. It does have a requirement that students be allowed to opt out of sex ed classes, to which McDaniel says he adhered.

(HT: Raw Story )

View the original article here

Climate change

(Difference between revisions)'''Climate change''' is mostly a natural phenomenon, which scientists say has occurred in repeated cycles of cooling (see [[Ice Age]]s) and warming over millions of years. Yet many writers have been urging America to fund an ill-conceived initiative to "stop global warming", as if warmer nights or winters would make human life more difficult. The term "climate change" has largely replaced the term "global warming", in ideological discussions.'''Climate change''' is the new name used by [[liberal]]s for their [[global warming]] hoax, which they coined as it became obvious that there is no crisis in global warming.Climate change occurs naturally, which scientists say has occurred in repeated cycles of cooling (see [[Ice Age]]s) and warming over millions of years. Yet many writers have been urging America to fund an ill-conceived initiative to "stop global warming", as if warmer nights or winters would make human life more difficult. The term "climate change" has largely replaced the term "global warming", in ideological discussions.Ideologues insist that the world's top scientists have reached a "consensus" that most of the warming which land-based weather stations have recorded in the last century is due to human activity. The basis for this claim is a set of reports published by the [[IPCC]], an agency of the United Nations. The assumption is that the government-appointed representatives who run the IPCC would be completely objective and neutral, and would place finding and revealing the truth ahead of any nationalistic interests.  Ideologues insist that the world's top scientists have reached a "consensus" that most of the warming which land-based weather stations have recorded in the last century is due to human activity. The basis for this claim is a set of reports published by the [[IPCC]], an agency of the United Nations. The assumption is that the government-appointed representatives who run the IPCC would be completely objective and neutral, and would place finding and revealing the truth ahead of any nationalistic interests.  

Climate change is the new name used by liberals for their global warming hoax, which they coined as it became obvious that there is no crisis in global warming.

Climate change occurs naturally, which scientists say has occurred in repeated cycles of cooling (see Ice Ages) and warming over millions of years. Yet many writers have been urging America to fund an ill-conceived initiative to "stop global warming", as if warmer nights or winters would make human life more difficult. The term "climate change" has largely replaced the term "global warming", in ideological discussions.

Ideologues insist that the world's top scientists have reached a "consensus" that most of the warming which land-based weather stations have recorded in the last century is due to human activity. The basis for this claim is a set of reports published by the IPCC, an agency of the United Nations. The assumption is that the government-appointed representatives who run the IPCC would be completely objective and neutral, and would place finding and revealing the truth ahead of any nationalistic interests.

A lot of money is spent publicizing each side's position in the debate:

"Newsweek purports to take readers inside the world of “Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine” without mentioning that the global-warming alarmists are even better funded, in some cases with government support. [3]

Ideologues use all sorts of tricks to convince the general public to support them on the climate change issue. A perennial favorite is to trumpet the current year as the "warmest year on record", as if one outlier denotes a trend. Probably the most insidious kind of trick is to accuse objective people of cherry-picking and censorship, while hypocritically doing just that themselves.

The allegedly harmful effects of climate change include warming temperatures, changing weather patterns, an increase in sea level and in general any climate event affected by global warming.[1] Climate change is one of the top environmental issues, with liberals and conservatives evenly divided on whether global warming is man-made or, if it is significantly occurring, is a natural event — along with global cooling.

Jack M. Hollander wrote:

The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural climate history for millions of years. So what is the global warming debate about? It's about the proposition that human use of fossil fuels has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But media coverage of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on politics than on science. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly politicized that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable. [2] if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); } What is the most important greenhouse gas? What is the role of clouds? Low-altitude clouds reflect some of the sun's radiation back into the atmosphere, cooling the earth. It's not yet known whether global warming will dissipate clouds, which would effectively speed up the process of climate change, or increase cloud cover, which would slow it down. [4] What are the uncertainties in understanding climatic change? The UN's climate panel said recently there is a 90% chance that most of the last 50 to 100 years of global warming are due to human activity Sallie Baliunas points out that the same climate panel also said, "Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors" [5]

Many times, AGW advocates pay lip service to general principles which they themselves violate, while broadcasting false accusations that their opponents are violating these principles. The AGW side has made every effort to censor their opponents, heaping enormous pressure on scientists and other academics to silence them. Accordingly, the US media gave great publicity to James Hansen when he accused NASA of trying to silence him.[4]

The main contention of environmentalists like Al Gore is the argument that:

The earth's atmosphere warmed one or two degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 Centigrade) during the 20th century. Most of this warming is man-made. The warming is likely to continue and to be harmful to human, animal and plant life. We must all work together to stop it by reducing emission of greenhouse gases.

Jack M. Hollander wrote:

... climate change remains a fascinating and important scientific subject. Climate dynamics and climate history are extraordinarily complex, and despite intensive study for decades, scientists are not yet able to explain satisfactorily such basic phenomena as extreme weather events (hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts), El Nino variations, historical climate cycles, and trends of atmospheric temperatures. The scientific uncertainties about all these matters are great, and not surprisingly, competent scientists disagree in their interpretations of what is and is not known.[5]

William Happer wrote:

The current debates about global climate change are complicated by our not understanding the physics of the sun or of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans well enough to dismiss them as major causes of climate change on the earth. Dramatic climate changes like the medieval warm period at the time of the Viking settlements of Iceland and Greenland from about a.d. 900 to 1250, and the subsequent “little ice age,” from about 1250 to 1700, which led to extinction of the Greenland settlements, were certainly not caused by manmade changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.[6]

One of the major problems with many scientists' conclusions about climate change is a misunderstanding of correlation versus causation. Some studies show correlations between increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and increasing precipitation, and between human activity and atmospheric greenhouse gases, and then go so far as to conclude that humans are causing increased rain, snow, and catastrophic flooding.[7][8] Correlation does not imply causation. This is especially true considering the relatively short periods of data used (a few decades at most) compared to the Earth's age, and the fact that weather patterns have been cyclic throughout history (see climate cycles).

? http://chaser.env.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~kengo/lec/IPCC_TAR-FRONT.pdf? http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides? "Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas ..." [1] ? Hansen "shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change" [2] ? http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM? http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_27.pdf? Gillis, Justin. "Study Links Rise in Rain and Snow to Human Actions." The New York Times, February 16, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/earth/17extreme.html?_r=2&ref=science? Schiermeier, Quirin. "Increased Flood Risk Linked to Global Warming." 2011. Nature, Vol. 470, p. 316. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html

View the original article here

Remarks by the First Lady at Champions of Change Women's Veterans Event

The White House

Office of the First Lady

Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C.

11:39 A.M. EDT

MRS. OBAMA:  Hello!  (Applause.)  Good afternoon -- morning.  It's still morning.  How is everyone?  You all, rest yourselves.  (Laughter.)  I hear we've been keeping you pretty busy, right? 

Well, I'm really thrilled to be here.  I am just delighted to have the opportunity to stop by and say hello, and to add my thanks to the many thanks.  But I want to start by thanking Secretary Shinseki, not just for his kind introduction but for his stalwart service to this country.  And also, when -- I hear Patty is here, too.  Patty -- there is Patty Shinseki, who has been with you.  I want to thank you for joining us today, and for all that you've done as a partner, with Jill and I, through Joining Forces.  It's wonderful to see you, as well as everyone here from the Business and Professional Women's Foundation, for the exceptional work that they do every day for women's veterans.

And, of course, I want to recognize the 14 extraordinary women we're honoring as our Champions of Change.  I had an opportunity to take some quick photos and meet Joshua over there, who is -- (laughter) -- he's riveted by today's proceedings.  (Laughter.) 

And I want to thank every single woman in this room who has worn our country's uniform.  And I know there are a few men here, so I don’t want you to think I'm ignoring you, but this is really not about you today.  (Laughter.)  Not at all.  But you look -- you all look good.  You dressed up for your respective people.  You're not embarrassing anyone, which is good.  (Laughter.) 

But to our women veterans, you all are part of a long line of women who have broken barriers and defied expectations and served this country with unparalleled courage and determination.  You've been on the front lines, often in the line of fire.  And generation after generation, women like you have proven that you not only serve alongside men -- you lead them, as well.  Let's just take a moment.  (Laughter.)  Whether you're in combat or aboard a submarine or anywhere else service takes you, you're doing the job, and you're doing it with grace and poise and dignity. 

And the beautiful thing about our veterans -- and this is especially true for our women veterans -- is that long after you stop serving this country, you don’t stop serving it after you hang up your uniforms.  And that’s something that we say all the time about our veterans.  It's important for the nation to understand that you all keep working.  You make me tired -- (laughter) -- but you keep doing it. 

You are the leaders in our businesses and schools in our communities.  You're mothers raising your kids with that same sense of honor that defines your own lives every single day.  You're volunteers in your neighborhoods, on the PTA, your houses of worship, always finding ways to keep lifting folks up. 

And the 14 women we're celebrating today are truly the living embodiment of that spirit of service.  They're helping women veterans and military families start their own businesses.  They're fighting to promote gender equality in the military.  They're working to end homelessness and domestic violence and sexual assault. 

One of our honorees, Marsha Four, a former Army nurse in Vietnam, founded a transitional housing residence for homeless vets.  She started another program specifically for homeless women's veterans.  And she says she does it -- and these are her words -- she says, "When I die, I will know that I have spent some of my time here on Earth in a very important way; that I was part of something bigger than me."  Yes, we all nod to that. 

Being part of something bigger than ourselves -- that is the common thread that connects our 14 honorees, and, quite frankly, everyone in this room.  And Dr. Jill Biden and I have seen all of this occurring all across this country.  That is the thread that connects all our nation's veterans and our military families. 

And through Joining Forces, Jill and I, we are determined to match that extraordinary service with some extraordinary service of our own.  We're determined to ensure that all of our veterans and military families get the benefits, support and respect that they have earned and that they deserve. 

And this mission is particularly urgent today -- I spoke of this last week.  With the Iraq war now -- is over, and the war in Afghanistan drawing to a close, hundreds of thousands of veterans, particularly our women veterans, are going to be looking for work and are looking for work.  Right now, we have so many talented, highly skilled veterans who have so much to offer this country.  And they're going to need that opportunity to make that happen.  We need that service operating here at home.

And that’s why, last week, I went to the Business Roundtable to speak with CEOs from 80 of our nation's leading businesses -- companies like Walmart, and JPMorgan Chase, and UPS.  And at that meeting, I challenged them.  I challenged some of the biggest countries [companies] in this nation to hire and train even more of our veterans and military spouses in the coming years as the needs increase.

And this kind of challenge and call to action is really just one part of a much bigger effort by this administration to ensure that our veterans have access to the jobs they need and deserve when they return home.  For example, over the past few years, my husband has made tax credits available to any business hiring an unemployed veteran or wounded warrior.  We've also been working to help our troops translate their skills into civilian résumés and match them with careers that suit their experiences.

We've created an online jobs bank, and we're connecting companies across America to veterans in local communities through our American Job Centers that have been created.  And we're also working to streamline the credentialing processes so it's easier for military truck drivers and welders and machinists and medics to earn the certifications they need here at home so that they can get jobs and they're not bogged down in paperwork trying to make that happen.

And I have said this before, but this work couldn’t be more urgent.  With so many women hanging up their uniforms and looking for that next mission -- because that’s what you all are doing; you're just transitioning missions -- we know that right now is the time when you need us most.  And that’s what we've been talking to this nation about -- because everyone is grateful.  We live in a grateful nation.  People respect and value your service, but now is the time when we've got to step up on your behalf.

We know that right now, as this transitioning is happening for so many veterans, this is the time when they're feeling whether or not this country is truly there for them right at that transition point.  Now is the time.

So I just want you all to know that I'm not going to stop working, Jill is not going to stop working, my husband and the Vice President, we are not going to stop working until all of our veterans and all of their families feel the support of our entire country.  And we've got work to do.  (Applause.) 

Because here is the thing about our veterans -- every time this country has issued a call, our veterans and our women veterans in uniform have answered it.  And -- absolutely.  (Applause.)  And as the 14 women we honor today remind us, they continue to answer that call as veterans every single day in our communities.  And it is my hope that as Americans, the rest of us will step up to meet that example -- to be a part of something bigger than ourselves, and to serve all of you as well as you've served us. 

But here's the good news -- through Joining Forces, there has never been a "no."  There isn't a request that we have made, a challenge that we've issued that this country, from every sector -- private, non-profit, businesses, our houses of worship -- people are ready and willing to answer the call for you.  And I think that’s so important for you to know, because there are times that you don’t feel the gratefulness of this nation, but it is there.  It is truly there. 

There is more work to do.  There are more challenges to meet.  But as you go through the process and you come across young veterans transitioning, it's important for them to know that they're not alone.  We're going to get it right, and we're going to keep working hard.  And we are so grateful, and so proud.

This is one of the best things I do every single day, is work with our servicemembers, our veterans and their tremendous families.  Because none of you, I know, could do what you do without somebody having your back.  And that’s usually a spouse, or a son, or a daughter, or someone else who has sacrificed tremendously so that you could serve.  And I know a little bit about that.  (Laughter and applause.)

So thank you to our Champions of Change.  As I told them, just don’t get tired.  We still need you.  And to all of our veterans, not just in this room but all across this country, we are proud of you.  We are grateful.  And we're going to keep working.  Just keep working for our nation, because we still need you.

Thank you for being here.  God bless.  Take care.

END
11:50 A.M. EDT

The first stop on President Obama's trip to the Middle East marks the first time the President has visited Israel since taking office, and comes as its citizens celebrate the 65th anniversary of a free and independent State of Israel.

On the third anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius lays out some of the ways in which the health reform has lowered costs.

We will be posting regular updates from the road and livestreaming several of the President's events on whitehouse.gov/live

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Dem Senator Pushes For Change In Military Response To Sexual Assault

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is bringing the ongoing crisis of sexual assault in the military into the spotlight, hoping to use a recent outrageous case as a springboard to change.

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Personnel, chaired by Gillibrand, met on Wednesday to begin the process of reforming the military justice’s handling of sexual assault cases, speaking to panels of both survivors of sexual assault in the military and top military law experts.

Gillibrand appeared on MSNBC on Thursday to present the hearing’s findings, leaving host Andrea Mitchell stunned. Over 19,000 allegations of Military Sexual Trauma (MST) were made in 2011 alone, but as Gillibrand informed Mitchell there were only 2,400 cases where action was taken. The disparity, according to Gillibrand, comes from fear of retaliation and “not being able to stay in the military and having no ability to be promoted.”

Both women shared their disbelief that the military justice system could take such a lax approach to a clear problem:

MITCHELL: I don’t understand the Military Code of Justice, in that it was a reason for dismissal for expulsion from the military until last year, if you violated Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Yet, if you were found guilty in a military court of a criminal assault, of rape, you could go back to your unit. How is that possible?

GILLIBRAND: It’s outrageous and it’s something that should outrage every American. When we look at our best and bravest, our strongest, our most courageous. When you enter the military, you may expect to lose a limb. You may expect to lose your life. But no one should be expecting to be assaulted or raped by one of their colleagues.

Watch their exchange here:

The permissive culture towards sexual violence Gillibrand described was underscored by the testimony of former Sgt. Rebekkah Havrilla. Havrilla told the subcommittee of the U.S. Army’s failure to provide proper assistance following several instances of alleged sexual assault and rape. At one point, an Army chaplain told Havrilla “that the rape was God’s will and that God was trying to get my attention so that I would go back to church.”

“Rape and assault are violent, traumatic crimes, not mistakes, leadership failures or oversights in character,” Anu Bhagwati, Co-Founder of the Service Women’s Action Network told the panel. Bhagwati offered a series of possible reforms to the military criminal justice system to the senators, including opening civil courts to military sexual assault victims.

Currently, the Uniform Military Code of Justice features an article that allows a commanding officer through his or her “convening authority” to overturn the conviction of a jury in courts-martial. Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin used that ability last week to overturn Lt. Col. James Wilkerson’s conviction of sexual assault, waive the one-year prison sentence, and reinstate Wilkerson in the Air Force. Under the law as written, Franklin’s decision can’t be overturned by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Air Force.

Wilkerson’s reinstatement has sparked outrage from both houses of Congress and prompted a review of the statute in question by the Department of Defense’s top lawyers. A bill has already been introduced in the House of Representatives related to the Wilkerson case. Reps. Jackie Spiers (D-CA), Bruce Braley (D-IA), and Patrick Meehan (R-PA) put forward the bill on Tuesday to strip commanders of their ability to overrule juries and lessen sentences.

View the original article here

U.S. Pacific Commander: Climate Change Greatest Threat In Region

Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, gave a striking answer when asked about the greatest threat the region faces: climate change.

Locklear spoke to the Boston Globe on the topic after spending two days in the Boston-area talking to scholars and foreign policy experts on the situation in the Pacific. As Locklear told the Globe, the changing climate “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’

Among the issues that the Admiral cited as most concerning was the possibility that rising sea-levels result in the disappearance of whole countries, producing influxes of “climate refugees” in neighboring states. The certainty that climate change is a phenomenon to be dealt with has affected the way that the Navy interacts with the various countries in the Indo-Pacific region that will be affected by shifting weather patterns:

“We have interjected into our multilateral dialogue – even with China and India – the imperative to kind of get military capabilities aligned [for] when the effects of climate change start to impact these massive populations,” he said. “If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.’’

The Navy has been at the forefront of attempting to shift U.S. policy on climate change through the influence wielded by the military. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus in 2009 announced the development of a “Great Green Fleet,” a Carrier Strike Group fueled by energy sources other than oil, as part of a strategy to reduce the Navy’s dependence on foreign oil. While currently more expensive, the Navy’s buying power would be able to bring down biofuel prices as supply catches up with demand. Mabus’ program was nearly shut down by Congress, but was revived by the Senate in November.

Locklear’s belief doesn’t indicate a full shift away from handling conventional state-based threats — such as from North Korea and China — but instead takes a broader look at the intersection between security and climate. The Center for American Progress recently co-published a series of articles on the links between climate change and the Arab Spring, highlighting the ties between rising food prices and civil unrest.

View the original article here

Head Of U.S. Pacific Forces: Climate Change Is Biggest Threat To Region’s Security

The Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command has identifued climate change as the most likely threat to the Pacific region, as ThinkProgress reported:

Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, gave a striking answer when asked about the greatest threat the region faces: climate change.

Locklear told the Boston Globe, the changing climate “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.”

Among the issues that the Admiral cited as most concerning was the possibility that rising sea-levels result in the disappearance of whole countries, producing influxes of ‘climate refugees‘ in neighboring states.

It’s surprising to hear the head of PACOM talk so starkly about the threats we face from climate change, but not surprising to hear this from the military. In 2010, the Quadrennial Defense Review made it clear that climate change impacts U.S. military resources:

While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas.

Peter Sinclair made a good video on national security impacts in 2010:

Most of those interviewed in that video are retired or former military, which makes Admiral Lockclear’s comments that much more striking.

It’s good to see climate hasn’t slipped from all national security considerations. Last year the CIA closed down its Center on Climate Change and National Security which opened in 2009.

Admiral Locklear went on to describe in his interview how important it was to coordinate multilaterally with China and India to respond to climate impacts:

“The ice is melting and sea is getting higher,” Locklear said, noting that 80 percent of the world’s population lives within 200 miles of the coast. “I’m into the consequence management side of it. I’m not a scientist, but the island of Tarawa in Kiribati, they’re contemplating moving their entire population to another country because [it] is not going to exist anymore.”

The US military, he said, is beginning to reach out to other armed forces in the region about the issue.

“We have interjected into our multilateral dialogue – even with China and India – the imperative to kind of get military capabilities aligned [for] when the effects of climate change start to impact these massive populations,” he said. “If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.”

If the American, Chinese, and Indian militaries are coordinating on responding to the threats of climate impacts, perhaps the militaries could provide some support to other bilateral and multilateral efforts that have stalled on climate in the past.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Fox And Friends: Polar Bears Prove Climate Change Is ‘Not Really Real’

(Photo credit: AP)

Polar bears can’t catch a break anywhere, least of all Fox News.

On Fox and Friends this morning, Fox Legal Analyst Peter Johnson Jr. was asked about last week’s ruling by the D.C. Circuit to uphold the decision to protect polar bears as a “threatened” species. He made the case that environmentalists use polar bears as a fundraising tool, and that the threat to polar bears may be imaginary:

JOHNSON: It really depends upon whether you believe the global warming is real, whether polar bears are actually threatened or not. This has become a big fundraising tool and it’s become a problem, too, for oil interests throughout the world because they have to act in a way that is very expensive in terms of making modifications.… So is global warming real or not real? I’ve heard a lot of people say it’s not really real.

Watch it:

Global warming is undoubtedly real. In fact, the real climate debate has shifted to how much climate scientists have actually underestimated global warming impacts.

With regard to polar bears, the court said that the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the polar bear correctly as “threatened”:

“The Listing Rule rests on a three-part thesis: the polar bear is dependent upon sea ice for its survival; sea ice is declining; and climatic changes have and will continue to dramatically reduce the extent and quality of Arctic sea ice to a degree sufficiently grave to jeopardize polar bear populations…. No part of this thesis is disputed and we find that FWS’s conclusion – that the polar bear is threatened within the meaning of the ESA – is reasonable and adequately supported by the record.” [Page 14]

It went on to say that 13 out of 14 peer reviewers found the rule generally “represented a thorough, clear, and balanced review of the best scientific information available from both published and unpublished sources of the current status of polar bears.”

Polar bears depend on sea ice for feeding. Arctic sea ice volume has collapsed. The question on threats to polar bears is not over whether general population estimates are stable. (Where there is sufficient data, many more subpopulations are decreasing than are increasing.) If Fox and Friends wants to get to the root of the issue, they should host a discussion about whether polar bears should be classified as “threatened” or “endangered.”

Polar bear ranges will only get more crowded by other animals. Under an incorrect-yet-ironic headline (“Study: Global Warming Helps Polar Bears,”) Fox News reported in January that many mammal species will expand their ranges northward as the Arctic warms. As the sea ice melts, the polar bears will surely welcome their new grizzly bear overlords from the south.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

It’s Not Too Late to Change the Course of the Vanishing Colorado River

Rachel Nuwer via Take Part

In 1922 the conservationist Aldo Leopold canoed through a lush, verdant delta full of green lagoons, darting fish and squawking waterfowl. But Leopold’s “milk and honey wilderness,” where the Colorado River empties into Mexico’s Gulf of California, ceased to exist decades ago. In its stead, a cracked, barren mudflat stretches for miles.

“If we choose, we can have healthy rivers alongside healthy economies,” Postel said. “We don’t have to be running our rivers dry.”

“This amazing place does not exist anymore,” said Sandra Postel, director of the Global Water Policy Project and freshwater fellow of the National Geographic Society. “A lot was lost.”

Ten major dams — from the Hoover Dam, erected in 1936, to the Glen Canyon Dam, completed in 1966 — block the flow of the Colorado River. Countless towns and industries siphon water from the river and its many tributaries as it meanders to the sea. Today the Colorado River joins the likes of the Indus, the Rio Grande, the Nile and other major world rivers that are so over-tapped they no longer reach the sea for long stretches of time. “This is one of America’s iconic rivers,” Postel said. “I don’t think this country would be the one we know today without the Colorado.”

It does not have to be this way, however. A restoration and outreach effort called Change the Course seeks to return the river to the sea. To pursue this goal, the National Geographic Society, the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, and Participant Media teamed up and pooled their expertise — science, social media, storytelling and policy — to change the fate of the once-mighty Colorado River.

A key to the campaign’s potential success rests on reversing more than 100 years of water use along the river. Since the mid-1800s, the Colorado River’s water was legally divided amongst farmers, landowners and ranchers along its course. Then, in the 1920s, seven states in the Colorado basin were allowed to divert additional water for cities, agriculture and industry. The result: more people have rights to divert water than the river has water to supply.

The clincher, however, is this: water rights holders have to “use it or lose it.” If a stakeholder does not divert his allocated amount of water from the river each year, he may lose those rights.

Bonneville Environmental Foundation, a nonprofit based in Portland, seized upon this idea.

The foundation’s water restoration certificates (WRCs) are designed to give landowners a choice in how they use their water. WRCs are a voluntary, market-based program that provides economic incentives allowing water rights holders to devise new water management solutions to restore water to critically dewatered ecosystems. Simply put, the WRC program provides funding to support projects that allow landowners to change they way they use their water rights in order to restore vital water to dewatered rivers and streams.

“We use market-based ideas to involve the private sector in solving environmental challenges,” said Todd Reeve, Bonneville’s chief executive officer. “The certificates can act as currency and a reporting mechanism to allow any business to restore to the planet the amount equal to the resources used in its operations.”

So far, Silk, the soy, almond and coconut milk company, has joined the campaign, and Reeve hopes that a myriad of others seeking to bolster their sustainability profiles join in the weeks and months to come. But it isn’t just companies that Change the Course hopes to reach. Importantly, it’s young people too.

Though 70 to 90 percent of the Colorado’s water is used for agriculture and industry, tackling the problem holistically means addressing the remaining consumption by households throughout the West. Following the theme of its film Last Call at the Oasis, Participant Media is launching the social action portion of the campaign, seeking to target 100,000 millennials as its core audience. After watching a minute-and-a-half informative video on the project and on individuals’ water footprints, people can sign a pledge to minimize their own water footprints. Joining the campaign automatically ensures that 1,000 gallons of water return to the Colorado River, which corporate sponsors such as Silk support by purchasing water restoration certificates.

People who sign up for the campaign receive sporadic texts and emails to keep them updated on the Colorado’s progress and also to educate them about their personal water footprints and ways to minimize their impacts.

For example, a participant may get a text informing her that 634 gallons of water are used to produce a single hamburger; that the person she loves most in the world is composed of 78 percent water; that only one percent of all water on Earth is not saltwater or frozen in ice; or that her T-shirt or winter salad comes from water-gobbling crops supported by the Colorado River.

Additionally, Participant Media plans to host an alternative summer break, inviting about a dozen young people to join them at restoration sites along the Colorado in the hopes that they will blog about their experiences and spread the word about the campaign to their universities. A series of short videos called Life Without Water is Awkward will also soon be released to raise attention for the campaign.

If things go well, the Colorado River could reach the sea in five to seven years, thanks to the efforts of Change the Course and numerous other nonprofit groups working to the same goal. “I think this has the potential to be one of the most significant environmental achievements of the last 50 to 100 years,” Reeve said.

Postel is confident that just adding water would do wonders for restoring wetland and riparian ecosystems, as demonstrated in a recent accidental natural experiment. Arizona, finding some of its water too salty to use, began sending the liquid waste over the border to Mexico’s desiccated delta. Soon, 14,000 acres of vegetation popped up around that life-giving source. “This is an example of how resilient the ecosystem is,” Postel said. “If you just add water, it will bounce back.”

“If we choose, we can have healthy rivers alongside healthy economies,” Postel said. “We don’t have to be running our rivers dry.”

For the Colorado and its tributaries, these fixes could mean changing where and how irrigation water is diverted so as to keep more water in natural river channels, or making use of opportunities to buy or lease water, as Change the Course successfully did with conservation partners last summer for the Yampa River near Steamboat Springs, Colorado.

Pending the campaign’s success, Change the Course is already imagining applying its formula to other rivers in need around the world, such as the Ganges or the Yellow. “We hope this community grows over time, and that Change the Course can help not only the 30 million people dependent on the Colorado River, but other people living in endangered freshwater systems around the world,” said Chad Boettcher, Participant Media’s executive vice president of social action and advocacy.

Rachel Nuwer is a science journalist writing for venues such as the New York Times, Scientific American, Smithsonian and Audubon Magazine, among others. She lives in Brooklyn.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

First Lady Michelle Obama Praises Change Happening Across the Nation

The White House

Office of the First Lady

From new school lunches to states like Mississippi where the childhood obesity rate is decreasing, Mrs. Obama lauds changes and encourages the nation to keep working for our children’s health

Clinton, MS – As part of the celebration of the third anniversary of Let’s Move!, First Lady Michelle Obama today highlighted change happening across the country to keep our children healthy, from new school lunches nationwide to localities where the childhood obesity rate is declining. Mrs. Obama praised these changes, and called on leaders from across the nation to keep working to improve our children’s health.

            The First Lady joined TV personality and child nutrition advocate Rachael Ray to highlight the new healthy school lunches that are now being served across the nation. Thanks to the bi-partisan Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, championed by Mrs. Obama and Ray, and signed into law by the President in 2010, the 32 million students who eat lunch provided by their school are now seeing more fruits, vegetables, low-fat or fat-free milk varieties, and whole grains; less saturated fat and sodium; and proper portion size on their lunch trays. Mrs. Obama and Rachael Ray hosted a cooking competition between school chefs to highlight the new healthier school lunches, and over the next several weeks, LetsMove.gov will feature school lunch success stories from across the nation.

Mrs. Obama and Rachael Ray chose to highlight school lunches in Mississippi, which was rated the most obese state in the nation for several years, because the state’s childhood obesity rates have declined by 13% among elementary school students in recent years.  According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Mississippi is one of several states and cities to show decreases in childhood obesity, including Philadelphia, New York City and California. Mrs. Obama praised Mississippi’s efforts and called on other states and cities to follow suit.

“We’ve seen real, measurable declines in the rates of childhood obesity right here in Mississippi, and in places like Philadelphia, New York City and California. And there is no reason why this success can’t happen in cities and states all across this country, if we’re willing to work for it,” said First Lady Michelle Obama. “So now is truly the time to double down on our efforts. We know what works, we know how to get results, now we just need to step up, and put in the energy, and effort and imagination.”

Growing evidence suggests comprehensive efforts such as making healthy foods available in schools and communities and integrating physical activity into people’s daily lives are making a difference and contributing to these declines.  The Clinton Public School District (CPSD) in Mississippi, where the First Lady visited, is an example of such a comprehensive effort. CPSD mobilized the entire community to make their schools healthier to support their children’s physical wellness and academic achievement. With leadership from the Superintendent, Board of Education, parents, students and community leaders, Clinton made healthy schools a top priority and implemented district-wide changes to bring physical activity and nutritious choices to students – all without additional funding.

In 2008, the Clinton School District performed a district-wide assessment of all aspects of school wellness through school health councils and the child nutrition director for the district. From the assessment, the district formed a plan to provide healthier school environments across the district through coordinated school health programming, which encouraged each school to form a school health council with students, parents, faculty, and community members.

Clinton then implemented a district-wide wellness policy that paved the way for its community to get involved in the effort to build healthier schools.

•          Clinton school cafeterias offer Grab-N-Go lunches in school cafeterias as a healthy, affordable alternative to lunches brought from home.
•          The district held a “Taste of CPSD” healthy recipe contest for students and brought in a professional chef to train child nutrition employees to get kids, parents, and employees excited about cooking and eating healthy foods.
•          Clinton also partnered with the Mississippi Department of Education and the Bower Foundation on the statewide “Move to Learn” campaign with the goal of increasing physical activity in classrooms.

In 2011, a health and wellness goal was added to Clinton Public School District’s strategic plan, making the health and wellness of its students and employees one of the district’s top five strategic plan goals, as important as academic achievement, recruiting and retaining great teachers and providing safe, technology friendly facilities. Today there are a number of programs and activities in place throughout the school district to encourage healthy lifestyle choices. Clinton’s schools were able to increase fruits and vegetables for student meals, ensure that nutrition education was taught in the classroom, and incorporate physical activity throughout the school day.

President Obama is on hand for the unveiling of the new Rosa Parks statue in the U.S. Capitol

February 27, 2013 12:00 PM EST

To mark African American History Month, as well as the 150th anniversary of the year the Emancipation Proclamation, we talked with White House Curator Bill Allman about a painting called Watch Meeting--Dec. 31st 1862--Waiting for the Hour that hangs near the Oval Office in the West Wing.

President Obama strongly believes we need to replace the arbitrary cuts known as the sequester with balanced deficit reduction, and today he was at a shipyard in Newport News, VA to talk about what failing to do so will mean for middle class families.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

February 22 News: Likely EPA Nominee Vows More Action on Climate Change

Gina McCarthy. (Photo credit: Alex Brandon/Associated Press)

Gina McCarthy, the current Environmental Protection Agency’s Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation and the front-runner to fill the top vacancy at the EPA pledged to push ahead with actions to confront climate change during a speech on Thursday. [The Hill]

McCarthy discussed a list of emissions rules rolled out during Obama’s first term, touting them for their public health benefits and effects on tackling climate change.

Among the rules were stronger fuel economy standards for vehicles, proposed rules for new coal-fired power plants and limits on mercury and other toxic air pollutants. [...]

Republicans have slammed the emissions standards, calling them economically burdensome.

McCarthy said, however, that tackling climate change “hasn’t hurt the economy,” and that “there are tremendous opportunities to address climate change that build the economy, that grow jobs.”

She challenged those in the audience to “be clear on the cost and benefits on all these programs moving forward.”

An analysis of weather station data shows that the coldest American states are warming the fastest, and across the country winter warming since 1970 has been more than four-and-a-half times faster per decade than over the past 100 years. [Climate Central]

The boom in cheap natural gas is undercutting the development of American nuclear power. Since 2010, the amount of electricity generated from U.S. nuclear reactors has fallen about 3 percent. [WaPo]

According to a paper published Thursday in Science, the melting of northern permafrost and consequent release of carbon dioxide could come sooner, and be more widespread, than experts previously believed. [Climate Central]

Time is running out to avert a third summer of drought in much of the High Plains, West and Southwest, unless significant bouts of heavy snow and rain come in the remaining days of winter. [Climate Central]

Affordable solar power is starting to make its way down the income ladder, and a pair of statewide California solar programs show how that’s good news for utility customers and taxpayers, too. [Clean Technia]

A new report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance uncovers a litany of biases in financial regulation that tilt markets in favor of conventional energy, and could potentially hold back the flow of investment into renewable energy technologies. [BusinessGreen]

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

USA Today On Keystone XL Rally: ‘Tens Of Thousands Demand Action On Climate Change’

So that was a heck of a rally. I welcome readers who attended to share their thoughts and pics.

If you missed it, you can get details from USA Today‘s story “Tens of thousands demand action on climate change.” Or from the Sierra Club news release, “More Than 35,000 Strong March on Washington for Climate Action.”

And then there’s always the Climate Progress twitter feed — my first mass tweeting from an iPhone.

I loved the combination of passion and knowledge that was driving the day. I had the chance to talk to a bunch of the speakers and was impressed by the strength of their commitment on climate in general and Keystone XL in particular.

Van Jones made clear that all of President Obama’s other accomplishments would be wiped away if he approves Keystone, since future generations are going to judge all of us on the basis of the actions we take on climate.

I was very impressed with the celebrities who came, that they had substance to go with the style. How great to have Rosario Dawson explain that it is called “tar sands” and not “oil sands.” And in chatting with her afterwards, it’s clear she also understands the spectrum of clean energy solutions.

And Evangeline Lilly (aka Kate Austen from Lost) was there as a Canadian to apologize to all the Americans in the audience for her country’s ceaseless efforts to send the dirtiest of fuels our way. I have seen every episode of Lost but lost my nerve to tell her how much I enjoyed her show except for the last five minutes, that is. It’s not like she was one of the writers…. But I digress.

I had a long talk with Tom Steyer, the billionaire hedge-fund manager who helped lead the “No on Prop 23? campaign to save California’s climate law in 2010. He is also on the board of CAP. He is full throttle that we have to act — and act now — if we are to avert catastrophe. He said to the crowd that he has spent a lot of time reviewing investments and Keystone is a bad investment for this country.

It is good to see a movement with passion from the top all the way down to the roots.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Colorado Committee Kills Bill Giving Legal Protections To Teaching Climate Change Denial And Creationism In Schools

By Jessica Goad

Earlier this week, a key legislative committee in Colorado voted down a bill that would give teachers at the state’s schools and colleges legal cover to teach the questioning of climate change and other subjects that “cause controversy” in the classroom.  The bill directed teachers to:

… create an environment that encourages students to intelligently and respectfully explore scientific questions and learn about scientific evidence related to biological and chemical evolution, global warming, and human cloning.

H.B. 13-1089 was sponsored by Rep. Stephen Humphrey (R) who explained:

This bill is not a curriculum change that would force educators to teach intelligent design or creationism.  It simply provides legal protections to those teachers who would like to provide their students with a complete education on both the strengths and weaknesses of these hotly debated scientific subjects.

The Colorado House Education Committee, of which Democrats are the majority, voted down the bill on a party line vote.

Colorado is not the only state to see such bills, even if their radical anti-science message did not gain traction there.  Legislators in five other states have introduced bills allowing teachers to deny evolution and climate change.  Interestingly, they all bear resemblance to “model” legislation that has been promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative corporate front-group that puts together draft bills for use by state legislators.

In the past, ALEC has drafted model bills such as the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act,” which requires teachers to “encourage an atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas.”  ALEC has also been behind bills that block putting a price on carbon, turn over public lands to states and private companies, and roll back state renewable electricity standards.  One of the co-sponsors of the bill in the Colorado Senate is a dues-paying member of ALEC.

The Heartland Institute, an extremist group that once compared people who believe in global warming to the Unabomber, has also been linked to these types of bills.  Heartland is still a member of the ALEC task force that originally wrote the Environmental Literacy Improvement Act, and is also designing climate-denial curriculum.

The fight over teaching climate change denial in schools has just begun.  As Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education put it:

This victory in Colorado was too close. People in Colorado and elsewhere need to understand that these bills would be nothing but trouble: scientifically misleading, pedagogically unnecessary, and likely to produce administrative, legal, and economic headaches.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center for the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

‘The Invisible War’ And How Movies Can Change Policy

I’ve been writing about The Invisible War, Kirby Dick’s documentary about the sexual assault epidemic in the military, since I saw it at Sundance last year. And now that it’s been nominated for an Academy Award, Dick and I sat down to discuss the movie’s impact, which Dick said had been a surprise:

Even before Hagel’s promise, The Invisible War was getting traction within the military itself, where it’s become a training tool and an agent of cultural change. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh screened The Invisible War for a meeting of wing commanders in November. And the rank and file are seeing the movie as well. Dick says that a distributor he works with who sells movies to the military and other institutions estimates that 235,000 service members—or nearly 10 percent of the 2.9 million members of the active and reserve armed forces—saw The Invisible War in 2012.

“The military itself is using the film for sexual-assault training, in part because, of course, they have no tools,” Dick said. “Eighty-five percent of those [viewers] are men. I think men seeing this is the real game changer, too. I think the film, not only on a policy level but on a cultural level, [is changing] the military. What people would joke about, you see this film and you don’t joke about it anymore.”

For all Dick is shocked by the failures of legislators and the military to act sooner, and by the Washington press corps for failing to investigate sexual assaults at Marine Barracks Washington—“There are documents, there is a lot of stuff there,” he said—he remains hopeful that the military can change, and that the rest of society can as well.

“The military’s done this before with racism. They could do it with this issue. And they could actually become a leader on the issue of sexual assault for the entire society,” he said. “There’s such divisiveness within this country, and especially around the military. There are a lot of issues with the military. But I think it’s a wonderful thought to think that civilians in society will look to the military as having been a leader in helping to reduce sexual assault across the country.”

It’s true that it’s easier—and probably better—for this to happen with documentaries than with feature films, television shows, or novels. But The Invisible War is one of the reasons I write about popular culture. You need narratives to push policy ideas forward. You need characters, be they human or fictional, to embody the impact of policies, or the lack thereof. And sometimes, people who have been deaf to the stories told by real people in their lives can hear those stories more clearly from the remove of a movie screen.

View the original article here

Historic Blizzard Poised to Strike New England: What Role Is Climate Change Playing?

An epic blizzard is bearing down on New England — fed in part by relatively warm coastal waters.

I asked Dr. Kevin Trenberth, former head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, to comment on the role climate change has on this storm. He explained:

This is a perfect set up for a big storm, with the combination of two parts: a disturbance from the Gulf region with lots of moisture and a cold front from the west.Ingredients for a big snow storm include temperatures just below freezing. In the past temperatures at this time of year would have been a lot below freezing but the ability to hold moisture in the atmosphere goes down by 7% per degree C (4% per deg F), and so in the past we would have had a snow storm but not these amounts.The moisture flow into the storm is also important and that is enhanced by higher than normal sea surface temperatures (SSTs). These are higher by about 1 deg C [almost 2°F] than a normal (pre-1980) due to global warming and so that adds about 10% to the potential for a big snow.

Every storm and “event” is unique. It always has unique ingredients. So it is hard if not impossible to take apart, because any piece missing means the storm behaves differently. So event attribution is not well posed. Instead we look for the environment in which the storm is occurring and how that has changed to make conditions warmer and moister over the oceans.

Like a baseball player on steroids, our climate system is breaking records at an unnatural pace. And like a baseball player on steroids, it’s the wrong question to ask whether a given home run is “caused” by steroids. As Trenberth wrote in his must-read analaysis, “How To Relate Climate Extremes to Climate Change,” the “answer to the oft-asked question of whether an event is caused by climate change is that it is the wrong question. All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.”

On the warmer SSTs, Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman explains:

As was the case when Hurricane Sandy struck in late October, sea-surface temperatures are running a couple degrees above average off the East Coast, which according to climate scientists may reflect both natural climate variability and the effects of manmade global warming.

The presence of unusually warm waters could aid in the rapid development of the storm system, and infuse it with additional moisture, thereby increasing snowfall totals.

Heavy precipitation events in the Northeast, including both rain and snowstorms, have been increasing in the past few decades, in a trend that a new federal climate report links to manmade global climate change. As the world has warmed, more moisture has been added to the atmosphere, giving storms additional energy to work with, and makingprecipitation extremes more common in many places.

Sea surface temperature anomalies off the East Coast. Credit Wunderground/NOAA via CC.

The blizzard is also pulling in an extraordinary amount of moisture, which is consistent with recent trends in the Northeast toward more frequent one-day precipitation extremes during the cold season, including snowstorms. The satellite-derived image of total precipitable water shows that the storm has been drawing tropical moisture from the Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic Ocean

Trenberth’s second point is an important one — warmer than normal winters favor snow storms (See “We get more snow storms in warm years“). A 2006 study, “Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States“ found we are seeing more northern snow storms and that we get more snow storms in warmer years:

The temporal distribution of snowstorms exhibited wide fluctuations during 1901-2000…. Upward trends occurred in the upper Midwest, East, and Northeast, and the national trend for 1901-2000 was upward, corresponding to trends in strong cyclonic activity….

Assessment of the January-February temperature conditions again showed that most of the United States had 71%-80% of their snowstorms in warmer-than-normal years….  a future with wetter and warmer winters, which is one outcome expected (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001), will bring more snowstorms than in 1901-2000. Agee (1991) found that long-term warming trends in the United States were associated with increasing cyclonic activity in North America, further indicating that a warmer future climate will generate more winter storms.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) U.S. Climate Impacts Report from 2009 reviewed that literature and concluded, “Cold-season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent.

So it is no surprise that a 2012 study found extreme snowstorms and deluges are becoming more frequent and more severe. Freedman points out:

For the northern hemisphere as a whole, winter storms have become more common and intense during the past 50 years, according to the draft federal report. Observed changes in winter air circulation in the northern hemisphere, possibly related to Arctic sea ice loss, has been linked to large swings in seasonal snowfall from one winter to the next in the Northeast. Other studies indicate that as global warming continues, nor’easters such as the one about to hit New England may become more frequent in this region, and less common in the Mid-Atlantic states, as storm tracks shift closer to the poles.

Again, the Northeast has been especially vulnerable to deluges and Snowmaggedons, experiencing a sharp increase in one-day precipitation extremes during the October to March cold season:

The other big impact of global warming on the destructiveness of superstorms like this (and Sandy) is sea level rise:

The coastal flooding threat for this storm in New York pales in comparison to what it was during Hurricane Sandy, when large parts of the city’s iconic subway system flooded in the face of a record storm surge, and many New Yorkers drowned in flood waters.

Rising sea levels due to warming seas and melting ice caps are already making typical nor’easters such as the upcoming event more damaging, since they provide the storms with a higher launching pad for causing coastal flooding. According to the draft National Climate Assessment report released in January, even without any changes in storms, the chance of what is now a 1-in-10-year coastal flood event in the Northeast could triple by 2100, occurring once every 3 years, due to rising sea levels.

According to research by Climate Central scientists, the sea level trend in Boston Harbor from 1959 to 2008 in Boston Harbor has been 2.31 milimeters per year, which is slightly below the global average over the same period. In the past 50 years, the water level has risen by about 4.5 inches at that location, although it has increased much more in other spots along the northeastern coast.

On Nantucket Island, where coastal flooding is anticipated from this storm along with hurricane-force winds, the sea level has risen by about half a foot during the past 50 years.

People should take the weather forecasts of this storm seriously and act accordingly.

Similarly, the nation should take seriously the climatic projections of ever worsening storms from global warming — and act accordingly.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

IMF Chief: ‘Unless We Take Action On Climate Change, Future Generations Will Be Roasted, Toasted, Fried And Grilled’

Another day, another icon of the global financial system becomes a climate hawk.

You may recall World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said of the climate crisis: “If there is no action soon, the future will become bleak.”

Turns out IMF managing director Christine Lagarde is also a climate hawk — and she’s the former conservative finance minister of France.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, she said, “the real wild card in the pack” of economic pivot points is “Increasing vulnerability from resource scarcity and climate change, with the potential for major social and economic disruption.” She called climate change “the greatest economic challenge of the 21st century.”

Ms. Lagarde concluded with a call for a new kind of economic growth. “So we need growth, but we also need green growth that respects environmental sustainability. Good ecology is good economics. This is one reason why getting carbon pricing right and removing fossil fuel subsidies are so important.”

In response to a question from the audience, she said: “Unless we take action on climate change, future generations will be roasted, toasted, fried and grilled.”

Perhaps the IMF can release an analysis as blunt as the stunning World Bank Climate Report from November that concluded: “A 4°C [7°F] world can, and must, be avoided” to avert “devastating” impacts. Its 2012 release, “Fiscal Policy to Mitigate Climate Change: A Guide for Policymakers,” was kind of a yawner.

Then we need to see the IMF actually focus on environmentally sustainable growth, as opposed to say, our currently unsustainable trajectory, which will roast, toast, fry and grill countless future generations.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Gore presses Obama to ‘follow through’ on climate change promises

President Obama "has to follow through" on his commitment to address climate change, even if it means using executive powers to get around congressional gridlock, according to former Vice President Al Gore.

Obama should "move boldly" on the agenda he articulated in his second inaugural address, which included strong words about addressing climate change, Gore said in an interview on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS."

While efforts to tackle climate change would run into GOP opposition in Congress, Gore said the president had ample powers to bear from the executive branch in addressing the issue.

"There are some actions he can take that do not require congressional approval," he said. "There is a law on the books that requires the EPA to regulate pollution. The Supreme Court has agreed with the obvious interpretation that global warming pollution is pollution. It's been applied to new coal plants. It should be applied to all facilities."

After taking his oath of office for a second term, Obama vowed the U.S. would "respond to the threat of climate change," and jabbed at climate skeptics blocking such efforts.

"Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms," he said. "The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it."

Gore said he believes Obama has found a "new firmness" entering his second term when it comes to dealing with GOP opposition, which made itself evident during his standoff over the "fiscal cliff" at the end of 2012.

"I think that he's learned a great deal during his first term. I don't want to sound patronizing in saying that. I've learned a great deal from watching his first term," he said. "But I think that you already see a greater depth and sophistication in his approach."

Accompanying Obama's new resolve is a "wariness" by Republicans to stand in the way of all his efforts, he argued.

"There is a new awareness, that the American people don't want gridlock. They don't want sclerosis," he said. "They don't want this hyper-partisanship."

On other issues, Gore said that the influx of corporate money into the political process has "functionally corrupted" democracy, and called for comprehensive campaign finance reform.

"The Congress now finds it virtually impossible to pass any kind of reform unless they first get permission from the special interests who are most involved with the issue involved and who finance their campaign," he said. "And that's pitiful."

Gore also defended the sale of his TV news network, Current TV, to Al Jazeera America. He called the new owners a "highly respected international news gathering organization."

"I think the net result, it's going to be very positive for the American media landscape," he said.

View Comments

View the original article here

Oklahoma, Colorado And Arizona Push ALEC Bill To Require Teaching Climate Change Denial In Schools

By Steve Horn Via DeSmogBlog

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) - known by its critics as a “corporate bill mill” – has hit the ground running in 2013, pushing “models bills” mandating the teaching of climate change denial in public school systems.

January hasn’t even ended, yet ALEC has already planted its ”Environmental Literacy Improvement Act“ - which mandates a “balanced” teaching of climate science in K-12 classrooms - in the state legislatures of Oklahoma, Colorado, and Arizona so far this year.

In the past five years since 2008, among the hottest years in U.S. history, ALEC has introduced its “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act” in 11 states, or over one-fifth of the statehouses nationwide. The bill has passed in four states, an undeniable form of “big government” this “free market” organization decries in its own literature.

ALEC’s “model bills” are written by and for corporate lobbyists alongside conservative legislators at its annual meetings. ALEC raises much of its corporate funding from the fossil fuel industry, which in turn utilizes ALEC as a key - though far from the only – vehicle to ram through its legislative agenda through in the states.

A DeSmogBlog investigation last year found that the Environmental Literacy Improvement Act’s orgins date back to 2000.

The Act’s creation is directly connected to the ongoing efforts of another corporate-funded group, the Heartland Institute – of “Heartland Institute Exposed” fame – a group well plugged into the climate change denial machine.

ALEC’s Natural Resources Task Force, now known as its Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force, adopted this model at a time when the Task Force was headed by Sandy Liddy Bourne. Bourne, who served in this capacity from 1999-2004, would eventually ascend to the role of Director of Legislation and Policy for ALEC in 2004.

Upon leaving ALEC in 2006, Bourne become Heartland’s Vice President for Policy Strategy. Today she serves as Exectutive Director of the American Energy Freedom Center, an outfit she co-heads withArthur G. Randol. Randol is a longtime lobbyist and PR flack for ExxonMobil, a corporation which endowed the climate change denial machine for years.

Heartland’s website still lists Bourne as one of its “experts,” stating that ”Under her leadership, 20 percent of ALEC model bills were enacted by one state or more, up from 11 percent.”

Importantly, Heartland is still a member of ALEC’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force that originally passed the Environmental Literacy Improvement Act.

According to internal documents leaked to and published by DeSmogBlog in Feb. 2012, Heartland obtained funding for a “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” project beginning in 2012. This cirruculum aims to teach that there “is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather.”

If this sounds similar to ALEC’s model bill, it should, given the fact that the two outfits share funding from the same honey pot. In fact, Heartland actively promotes the ALEC model on its website.

Oklahoma and Colorado came first and within just over a week, Arizona followed suit in proposing the ALEC climate science “mis-education” bill.

Oklahoma: Sooner Rather than Later

On Jan. 18, the Sooner State’s legislature took the lead for 2013 in pushing the ALEC climate change education model in the form of HB 1674, the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act.”

HB 1674 calls for the teaching of “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories,” including of global warming, saying it’s a theory steeped in “controversy” - not that the actual scientific record thinks so.

This is necessary, the bill states, “to help students develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens,” going on to explain that it’s important to explore “differences of opinion on scientific issues.”

The ALEC model similarly calls for the teaching of “critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific…controversies.” The model also mandates creation of “an atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas” in the scientific sphere.

The OK bill is sponsored by Rep. Gus Blackwell (R-61), unsurprisngly a dues-paying member of ALEC. According to a Dec. 2012 report published by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) titled, “Buying Influence,” Blackwell has paid for his attendance at least one ALEC meeting with taxpayer money.

National Institute on Money in State Politics’ data demonstrates that Blackwell’s largest pool of campaign funding for his 2012 electoral victory came from the oil and gas industry, which gave him $28,800. This includes taking $7,500 from shale gas industry giant Chesapeake Energy, $2,350 from ConocoPhillips, and $1,000 each from Koch Industries and coal industry giant Duke Energy, among others. All of these corporations also fund ALEC.

Colorado’s Same Day Affair

One sure sign of a coordinated, ALEC-lead effort is the fact that Colorado’s state legislature introduced the ALEC model on the same day as did Oklahoma’s. The two states, it’s worth noting, share a border on Oklahoma’s panhandle.

On Jan. 18, 2013, eight representatives and four senators introduced HB 13-1089, coining the bills the “Academic Freedom Acts.”

Paralleling the language in the ALEC model and the Oklahoma bill, the HB 13-1089 aims to “Inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills,” also recognizing that the teaching of the concept global warming “can cause controversy.”

One of the senators co-sponsoring the bill, Rep. Scott Renfroe (R-13) is an ALEC dues-paying member. He’s also attended at least one ALEC meeting paid for by Colorado taxpayers, according to the CMD’s “Buying Influence” report.

Of the $91,000 dollars he raised for the 2012 election, over $5,000 of it came from the oil, gas and electric utilities industry, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. This includes taking money from Chesapeake Energy, Anadarko Petroleum, Williams Companies, and the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.

The Arizona (Sun) Devils are in the Details

Eight days later, ALEC’s model bill made its way to Arizona, a state sharing a “corner border” with Colorado.

Arizona’s SB 1213 was introduced on Jan. 26, 2013 by six senators that, as it turns out, are all dues-paying ALEC members. Five of the six have attended conferences totally on the taxpayer dime,according to CMD’s report.

SB 1213 incorporates the “critical thinking skills” operative language, the “scientific controversies” operative language and the  ”teaching…global warming” can “cause controversy” operative language.

In short, SB 1213 is the same exact copycat ALEC model bill that’s been proposed in both Oklahoma and Colorado.

Groundhog Day is on Feb. 2 and fittingly, ALEC and its corporate patrons continue to sing the same tune, simultaneously promoting fracking, blockading a transition to renewable energy and pushing bills mandating teaching climate change denial on par with actual science.

“It’s the same old schtick every year, the guy comes out with a big old stick, raps on the door,” actor Bill Murray said in the classic film “Groundhog Day.” “They pull the little rat out, they talk to him, the rat talks back, then they tell us what’s gonna happen.”

Replace “guy” with “corporate lobbyist” and “legislators” with “rats” and that’s ALEC in a nutshell, serving as a mere microcosm of the current American political system at-large.
Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1zbJI)

– Steve Horn’s piece is reprinted from DeSmogBlog

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here