The Three Stooges of Climate Change

Tweet

Meat-free Friday will return next week!  Be sure to "like" greenmomster on Facebook!

While some issues can be addressed sufficiently at the local level, climate change is not one of those issues.  Climate change must be addressed at the Federal, state, local, and private business levels.  That's why choosing our next president is so important.  That's also why, if you care at all about climate change and your children's future, you should not, not, not vote for Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio.  I'm going to let their statements speak for themselves:

Donald Trump on climate change:

1. His official website, www.donaldjtrump.com, includes absolutely no information on his climate change policy.  It does, though, include videos on such important topics as "life changing experiences."
2. He's called climate change a hoax invented by the Chinese. Not just once. Just watch him on FOX. 'nuff said.

Ted Cruz on climate change:

1. His official website, www.TedCruz.org, also includes no information on his climate change policy.
2. Ted Cruz claims that satellites don't show any warming.  Here's the full explanation of why he's cherry-picking the data. The above video demonstrates Ted Cruz's vast scientific knowledge and understanding.

And if that's not enough to move your hand away from the Cruz button in the voting booth, here's a nice little interview with Glenn Beck that should scare the pants off you:

Marco Rubio on climate change:

The good news is that Marco Rubio's official website does mention energy and climate change.  The bad news is his plan, which includes:

1. approving the Keystone XL pipeline
2. opposing any type of cap and trade carbon tax
3. stopping President Obama's carbon mandates
4. not "destroying our economy" with climate change measures -- I'll remember that when we have to buy all of our renewable energy equipment overseas, because our government leaders were rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic rather than dealing with climate change.

OK, so now we're done with the three stooges of climate change.  Let's take a look at the candidates who may actually do something to protect our children's future:  Kasich, Clinton, and Sanders.

John Kasich on climate change:

In keeping with the previous three candidates, the John Kasich official website does not mention climate change.  But hope is not lost!  According to an article by Renee Cho in Scientific American (10/28/2015), 

John Kasich "believes climate change is real and manmade and has called for action against it, but has not said how he would combat climate change if elected.  While he feels renewable energy should be a large part of our future energy mix and encourages research into new technologies, he supports an all-of-the-above energy policy, which includes approval of the Keystone XL pipeline and oil drilling on federal lands.  Kasich opposes the EPA's Clean Power Plan and would undo all federal fracking regulations."  

Not exactly the greenest choice, but if you want to vote Republican and deal with climate change, Kasich is your man.

Hillary Clinton on climate change

Hillary Clinton's official website has an entire page devoted to her plan for tackling climate change.  From her website, Clinton pledges to:

• "Create good-paying jobs by making the United States the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.
• Set national goals to have 500 million solar panels installed; generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America; cut energy waste in homes, schools, and hospitals by a third; and reduce American oil consumption by a third.
• Lead the world in the fight against climate change by bringing greenhouse gas emissions to 30 percent below what they were in 2005 within the next decade—and keep going."

Elements of the plan include pollution and efficiency standards, help for coal and low-income communities, reforms of leasing on public lands, and cutting methane emissions.

Bernie Sanders on climate change

Bernie Sanders is so into fighting climate change that it's even got a hashtag on his website (#peoplebeforepolluters)!  From his official website:

"The scientists are virtually unanimous that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is already causing devastating problems in the United States and around the world.  And, they tell us, if we do not act boldly the situation will only become much worse i years to come in terms of drought, floods, extreme storms and acidification of the oceans.  Sadly, we now have a Republican Party that is more concerned about protecting the profits of Exxon, BP and Shell and the coal industry than protecting the planet.  While fossil fuel companies are raking in record profits, climate change ravages our planet and our people -- all because the wealthiest industry in the history of our planet has bribed politicians into ignoring science."

Bernie Sanders definitely doesn't hold back.  His plan includes such steps as:

• accelerating a just transition away from fossil fuels
• taking policy control/power back from the oil companies
• revolutionizing our electric and transportation infrastructure

You can read about his plans on the website.

 The take-home:  whether you're republican, democrat, or independent, there's a climate-friendly choice for you in 2016.

TBT–Why military personnel (and those who love them) should care about climate change

Tweet

Since the U.S. climate change report came out this week, I thought we’d stick with climate change for this week’s TBT post.  Enjoy!

I come from a military family.  My dad is a prior-enlisted, West Point grad who served 32 years, including two tours in Vietnam.  My brother served in the Army reserves and my husband in the Coast Guard (where we met!)  I worked as a civilian with the Coast Guard for seven years.  I even had a grandfather in the German navy!  I may be a tree-huggin’, birkenstock wearin’, environmental blogger, but I’m also well aware of the service of our military personnel.  I believe that climate change is an issue about which military personnel should educate themselves and become active.  Here’s why:

• Your chain of command – DOD has stated very clearly that climate change is an issue of concern to the military.  A recent report by the Defense Science Board Task Force outlined recommended steps that DOD and other federal agencies should take to address climate change and its global impacts.  The report “recognizes that changes already underway are having, and will continue to have, major consequences for the political, economic, and geographic world as we know it.”  The report included a special focus on Africa and stated that DOD needs a strong climate change information database, a government-wide approach to mitigating climate change impacts, and engagement with international leaders to work toward a global solution. 
• Climate refugees – Several recent reports (Stern 2006;  Bierman and Boas 2010; UN website ) have estimated that by 2050 100-200 million people worldwide could be displaced due to direct effects of climate change (flooding).   Most of the refugees will come from Asia and Africa.  As these people move, they will need to find new homes.  Often, our military is called upon to provide peace-keeping activities during these types of events. 
• Climate conflict – Not everyone will move on from flooding in a peaceful way.  Additionally, the secondary effects of climate change include drought, inland flooding, and storms which could affect food supplies.  Countries often go to war when resources get tight.
• Taxes – The military pays taxes too!  As we see more “weird weather” throughout the U.S., we’ll also see more people whose homes and towns were destroyed by floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes.  We’ve already seen lower lobster harvests in Maine(due to higher sea temperatures),and lower water levels in Lake Erie leading to altered port and shore infrastucture.  These adjustments and rebuilds cost money, lots of money.  “But hey, so does stopping climate change!” you say.  Well, I’d rather have my tax dollars go toward proactive change that could prevent problems down the road, as opposed to spending millions to close the barn door after the horse is gone. (Take a look at theChesapeake Bay Foundation’s report regarding jobs and environmental protection, too).

Climate change is real; it’s happening.   And frankly, our military personnel will be some of the first folks to deal with the results.  Need a quick primer on climate change?  Check out the series of videos on the topic, “Don’t Just Sit There, Do Something.”  Here’s the latest edition

    The others can be found at www.facebook.org/greenmomster.  Now is the time for military personnel, and those who love them, to get educated and get active to slow the effects of climate change!

Be sure to "like" greenmomster on facebook for the latest updates.

Sources:
Biello, D.  2009.  “Can Climate Change Cause Conflict? Recent History Suggests So” in Scientific American, November 23, 2009.  Accessed online 10/8/2012.
Bierman, F. and I. Boas.  2010.  Preparing for a Warmer World: Towards a Global Governance System to ProtectClimate Refugees. Global Environmental Politics. Feb2010, Vol. 10 Issue 1, p60-88, 29p, 1 Chart.
Defense Science Board Task Force.  2011.  Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security.  Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, October 2011.
Stern, N.  2006.  Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.  Accessed via web on 10/8/2012. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm  Last updated 7/4/2010.
United Nations. 2012.  http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e4a5096.html.  Accessed via web on 10/8/2012.

Why military personnel (and those who love them) should care about climate change

Tweet

I come from a military family.  My dad is a prior-enlisted, West Point grad who served 32 years, including two tours in Vietnam.  My brother served in the Army reserves and my husband in the Coast Guard (where we met!)  I worked as a civilian with the Coast Guard for seven years.  I even had a grandfather in the German navy!  I may be a tree-huggin’, birkenstock wearin’, environmental blogger, but I’m also well aware of the service of our military personnel.  I believe that climate change is an issue about which military personnel should educate themselves and become active.  Here’s why:

• Your chain of command – DOD has stated very clearly that climate change is an issue of concern to the military.  A recent report by the Defense Science Board Task Force outlined recommended steps that DOD and other federal agencies should take to address climate change and its global impacts.  The report “recognizes that changes already underway are having, and will continue to have, major consequences for the political, economic, and geographic world as we know it.”  The report included a special focus on Africa and stated that DOD needs a strong climate change information database, a government-wide approach to mitigating climate change impacts, and engagement with international leaders to work toward a global solution. 
• Climate refugees – Several recent reports (Stern 2006;  Bierman and Boas 2010; UN website ) have estimated that by 2050 100-200 million people worldwide could be displaced due to direct effects of climate change (flooding).   Most of the refugees will come from Asia and Africa.  As these people move, they will need to find new homes.  Often, our military is called upon to provide peace-keeping activities during these types of events. 
• Climate conflict – Not everyone will move on from flooding in a peaceful way.  Additionally, the secondary effects of climate change include drought, inland flooding, and storms which could affect food supplies.  Countries often go to war when resources get tight.
• Taxes – The military pays taxes too!  As we see more “weird weather” throughout the U.S., we’ll also see more people whose homes and towns were destroyed by floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes.  We’ve already seen lower lobster harvests in Maine (due to higher sea temperatures),and lower water levels in Lake Erie leading to altered port and shore infrastucture.  These adjustments and rebuilds cost money, lots of money.  “But hey, so does stopping climate change!” you say.  Well, I’d rather have my tax dollars go toward proactive change that could prevent problems down the road, as opposed to spending millions to close the barn door after the horse is gone. (Take a look at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s report regarding jobs and environmental protection, too).

Climate change is real; it’s happening.   And frankly, our military personnel will be some of the first folks to deal with the results.  Need a quick primer on climate change?  Check out the series of videos on the topic, “Don’t Just Sit There, Do Something.”  Here’s the latest edition    The others can be found at www.facebook.org/greenmomster.  Now is the time for military personnel, and those who love them, to get educated and get active to slow the effects of climate change!

Be sure to "like" greenmomster on facebook for the latest updates.

Sources:
Biello, D.  2009.  “Can Climate Change Cause Conflict? Recent History Suggests So” in Scientific American, November 23, 2009.  Accessed online 10/8/2012.
Bierman, F. and I. Boas.  2010.  Preparing for a Warmer World: Towards a Global Governance System to Protect Climate Refugees.  Global Environmental Politics. Feb2010, Vol. 10 Issue 1, p60-88, 29p, 1 Chart. 
Defense Science Board Task Force.  2011.  Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security.  Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, October 2011. 
Stern, N.  2006.  Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.  Accessed via web on 10/8/2012.  http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm  Last updated 7/4/2010.
United Nations. 2012.  http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e4a5096.html.  Accessed via web on 10/8/2012.

5 Ways to Get Out of Your Comfort Zone for Earth Day!

Tweet

For this Earth Day, I’m not going to suggest tree-planting or trash pickup (see Climate Mama for family friendly ideas).  I’m not going to suggest going for a hike or canoe ride.  Most of us have a “comfort zone” in which we live.  Unfortunately, our comfort zones have led to some pretty uncomfortable realities for the Earth on which we live.  This Earth Day, let’s talk about uncomfortable subjects and do something to address the really big “elephants in the room.”  Here are 5 suggestions for Earth Day activities that might get us out of our comfort zones.

1)  Talk about human population growth and its effect on the planet.  Population growth is the “elephant in the room” that no one wants to discuss, but we need to discuss it.  There are currently 7 billion people on Earth and many estimates expect a peak of 9 billion people!  There are lots of suggestions regarding how we might slow population growth, from increasing women’s educational and economic levels to handing out condoms.  What do you think is the most practical solution?  What’s the best way to get people to consider the environment when planning family size?  On a light note, one group will be giving out endangered species condoms – check them out!

2)  Watch a movie about the coal industry in West Virginia.  We should all know where our energy comes from and how our energy use affects the lives of other citizens.  To help raise greater public awareness about the environmental and public health impacts of coal, BURNING THE FUTURE: COAL IN AMERICA will air on PBS this April and May.  The film will also be available to view free online during Earth Day Weekend (4/21-22).  If you’d like to register to watch the film, visit the online registration. 

3)  Educate yourself about climate change.  No matter how much we’d like to stick our heads in the sand, climate change is occurring and it is primarily caused by human activity.  Here is some of what we know about climate change from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) (IPCC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

• “Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. (IPCC 2007)
• Current levels of atmospheric CO₂ are the highest in the past 650,000 years. (NOAA)
• “Average arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years. Arctic temperatures have high decadal variability, and a warm period was also observed from 1925 to 1945.” (IPCC 2007)
• “Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise.” (IPCC 2007).  The people in the island nation of Kiribati are planning to move their country in response to current sea level rise.
• “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.  This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.” (IPCC 2007)

4)  Let your legislators know that climate change is an important issue to you and you really want to see some action on the issue.  Climate change is not a Democratic or Republican issue.  Legislators on both side of the aisle have stated the need for immediate action.  Check out statements and actions from  Representative Bob Inglis, Senator Olympia Snowe, Senator Susan Collins, Governor Chris Christie, Representative Chris Smith, President Obama, Representative (resigned) Jay Inslee, and Representative Henry Waxman.  Local governments around the country are preparing for the effects of climate change.  A May, 2010, article in Scientific American outlined how cities from Berkeley CA to Austin TX to Denver CO are introducing innovative programs to address climate change.  In 2009, the 1000th mayor signed the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, committing to reduce carbon emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.  As a group of committed citizens, we must support our elected officials when they act to slow climate change, and strongly encourage them to develop a national energy policy that puts climate change in the forefront.  

5)  Figure out your personal impact and resolve to make one BIG change.  Still not sure what your impact is?  Check out www.footprintnetwork.org to see what your personal impact on climate change is.  You’ll see that burning fossil fuels, whether to produce electricity in your home, to produce food, or to run your car is a huge contributor to CO₂ emissions that affect climate change.  Conservation of energy is the biggest way we, as individuals, can slow climate change. 

Here’s to leaving our comfort zones and entering a more Earth-friendly future!  Happy Earth Day to all!

5 Ways to Get Out of Your Comfort Zone!

Tweet

As everyone on Facebook knows, it’s “throwback Thursday!”  So Greenmomster is joining the trend by re-publishing former posts that still seem relevant.  Since we just celebrated Earth Day, here’s an Earth Day post from 2012!

For this Earth Day, I’m not going to suggest tree-planting or trash pickup (see Climate Mama for family friendly ideas).  I’m not going to suggest going for a hike or canoe ride.  Most of us have a “comfort zone” in which we live.  Unfortunately, our comfort zones have led to some pretty uncomfortable realities for the Earth on which we live.  This Earth Day, let’s talk about uncomfortable subjects and do something to address the really big “elephants in the room.”  Here are 5 suggestions for Earth Day activities that might get us out of our comfort zones.

1)  Talk about human population growth and its effect on the planet.  Population growth is the “elephant in the room” that no one wants to discuss, but we need to discuss it.  There are currently 7 billion people on Earth and many estimates expect a peak of 9 billion people!  There are lots of suggestions regarding how we might slow population growth, from increasing women’s educational and economic levels to handing out condoms.  What do you think is the most practical solution?  What’s the best way to get people to consider the environment when planning family size?  On a light note, one group will be giving out endangered species condoms – check them out!

2)  Watch a movie about the coal industry in West Virginia.  We should all know where our energy comes from and how our energy use affects the lives of other citizens.  To help raise greater public awareness about the environmental and public health impacts of coal,BURNING THE FUTURE: COAL IN AMERICA will air on PBS this April and May.  The film will also be available to view free online during Earth Day Weekend (4/21-22/2012).  If you’d like to register to watch the film, visit the online registration. 

3)  Educate yourself about climate change.  No matter how much we’d like to stick our heads in the sand, climate change is occurring and it is primarily caused by human activity.  Here is some of what we know about climate change from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007)(IPCC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

• “Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. (IPCC 2007)
• Current levels of atmospheric CO₂ are the highest in the past 650,000 years. (NOAA)
• “Average arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years. Arctic temperatures have high decadal variability, and a warm period was also observed from 1925 to 1945.” (IPCC 2007)
• “Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise.” (IPCC 2007).  The people in the island nation ofKiribati are planning to move their country in response to current sea level rise.
• “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.” (IPCC 2007)

4)  Let your legislators know that climate change is an important issue to you and you really want to see some action on the issue.  Climate change is not a Democratic or Republican issue.  Legislators on both side of the aisle have stated the need for immediate action.  Check out statements and actions from  Representative Bob Inglis, Senator Olympia Snowe, Senator Susan Collins, Governor Chris Christie, Representative Chris Smith, President Obama, Representative (resigned) Jay Inslee, and Representative Henry Waxman.  Local governments around the country are preparing for the effects of climate change.  A May, 2010, article in Scientific American outlined how cities from Berkeley CA to Austin TX to Denver CO are introducing innovative programs to address climate change.  In 2009, the 1000th mayor signed the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, committing to reduce carbon emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.  As a group of committed citizens, we must support our elected officials when they act to slow climate change, and strongly encourage them to develop a national energy policy that puts climate change in the forefront.  

5)  Figure out your personal impact and resolve to make one BIG change.  Still not sure what your impact is?  Check out www.footprintnetwork.org to see what your personal impact on climate change is.  You’ll see that burning fossil fuels, whether to produce electricity in your home, to produce food, or to run your car is a huge contributor to CO₂ emissions that affect climate change.  Conservation of energy is the biggest way we, as individuals, can slow climate change. 

Here’s to leaving our comfort zones and entering a more Earth-friendly future!  Happy Earth Day to all!

Be sure to “Like” Greenmomster on Facebook!

This is our Apollo moment

Tweet

A couple of years ago, my family and I visited Kennedy Space Center in Florida.  One of the exhibits allowed visitors to listen to the actual audio of one of the Apollo launches.  I remember sitting in the “control room,” so impressed and proud of what our country and its citizens had accomplished!  I remember thinking, if we could put humans on the moon, with the “old fashioned” technology of the day, we could conquer many other technological hurdles. 

Climate change is one of the biggest issues facing our nation and the world today.  Slowing climate change is this generation’s Apollo mission.  I believe that if we have the political and popular will, climate change is an issue we can address.  Thus, I found Mitt Romney’s energy plan, announced yesterday, to be incredibly disappointing.  I’m certainly not alone in my disappointment.  Mr. Romney did not follow the lead of John McCain who, in 2008, acknowledged that climate change was a significant issue for the nation and supported carbon emissions reductions.  In fact, Mr. Romney’s plan did not mention the issue of climate change at all.  Instead of looking ahead toward renewable energy and becoming a worldwide leader in the industry, Mr. Romney’s proposal looks backwards toward an increased reliance on fossil fuels.  Here’s how it’s explained on the campaign website:

“The United States is blessed with a cornucopia of carbon-based energy resources. Developing them has been a pathway to prosperity for the nation in the past and offers similar promise for the future.

• Conduct comprehensive survey of America’s energy reserves
• Open America’s energy reserves for development
• Expand opportunities for U.S. resource developers to forge partnerships with neighboring countries
• Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States
• Prevent overregulation of shale gas development and extraction”

Additionally, Mr. Romney proposes to “amend [the] Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview.”  Wow.  At a time when the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007)(IPCC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)have stated that CO₂ is a major cause of climate change, that’s his solution?  Here are a few statements from the IPCC and NOAA regarding climate change:

• “Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. (IPCC 2007)
• Current levels of atmospheric CO₂ are the highest in the past 650,000 years. (NOAA)
• “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.” (IPCC 2007)

In comparison, President Obama’s proposed energy policy acknowledges the reality of climate change and is more favorable than Mr. Romney’s toward renewable energy (although I’d like to see the “clean coal” item disappear).  Mr. Obama’s proposals include an “all of the above” strategy that encourages development of fossil fuel resources, as well as wind and solar energy.  Probably, Mr. Obama’s biggest achievement toward reducing greenhouse gases while in office would be the legislation that will improve the overall fuel economy of the nation’s passenger auto fleet to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, roughly double the fuel economy of 2008.  

So why should our energy policy be an issue on which you vote?  Because climate change will affect the lives of our children and our grandchildren – that’s an issue greenmomsters should care about.  If you’re still unconvinced, check out this video, the first in a series on climate change from Joylette Portlock:

I fully understand that gradually moving our energy policy towards renewables won’t be easy or simple.  Neither was going to the moon.  It’s going to take leadership, vision, and political courage.  But isn’t that what we should expect from our elected officials?  The U.S. didn’t become the richest and most powerful nation in the world by looking backward.  We didn’t become who we are by being fearful of new ideas or new directions.  We’ve always been a leader in technology and innovation.  I hope we can once again find that spirit of courage, innovation, and leadership and insist that our government leaders help to create an energy policy that is sustainable for many future generations.

It just ain’t as much fun as twerking -- 5 pieces of climate change news that you might have missed

Tweet

Be sure to "Like" greenmomster on Facebook!

While our local news outlets have been busy providing us with important news (ie.  the definition of twerking, which stores will open on Thanksgiving for Black Friday, and why Toronto’s mayor thinks he should stay in office), there have actually been some important news stories on the topic of climate change (an issue that will affect every one of the 7 billion people on Earth).  Here are a few articles/posts/reports from the past several months that you might want to check out:

1. The UNEP and World Meteorological Organization’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its 2013 report.  From the Summary for Policy Makers, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.”
2. A paper published in the journal Nature in October predicted when we might see higher temps as the “norm” in areas around the world.  This paper from researchers at the University of Hawaii sheds new light on the urgency of needed changes in human contributions to climate change.  (Mora, C., et al.  2013.  “The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability”  Nature 502, 183-187.)
3. The Warsaw Climate Change Conference was held in November.  Check this site for updates.
4. The coal industry staged a protest against EPA’s new rules to control carbon emissions. It’s good to be acquainted with both sides of the argument!
5. Energy Star has begun its Do 1 Thing campaign with tips on what you can do in your home to reduce energy waste (and, thus, climate change).  Topics covered so far include lighting and simple insulation tips.

As we all know well, our Federal government representatives are a bit too busy at this time to deal with issues like climate change.  Climate change is definitely an area in which we must “Think Globally. Act Locally.”  What’s going on in your neighborhood?  Any new building projects that need a greenmomster to ask about energy efficiency?  I know in my town of Vienna VA, they’re designing a vision for our main street – fortunately they’re considering environmental issues and listening to town residents, but attendance by greenmomsters at town meetings is essential!  What about your local energy provider?  Up and down the east coast of the U.S., wind energy is on the verge of success – why not encourage your energy provider and local officials to support this option?
Nope, climate change might not be quite as entertaining as Mileys’ latest antics, but I’m guessing your grandchildren will be glad you paid attention to the less glamorous stuff.

 

Open Letter to PepsiCo

Tweet

As we move closer to the September 21 People’s Climate March in NYC, I was asked to share an open letter to the CEO of PepsiCo regarding palm oil production and use – it’s a major source of greenhouse gases.

Open Letter to Indra Nooyi: Mom to Mom – NO more Conflict Palm Oil

“Tell the truth, actions speak louder then words, and don’t be afraid.” Our mantra and words we live by. Over this past year, we have been thrilled to be part of the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) Snack Food 20 Campaign; a campaign targeted at the world’s largest snack food companies that demands the truth, uses strong actions and shows us that we needn’t be afraid!

Our ask, in fact our demand, is that these companies stop using Conflict Palm Oil; and many of these companies have listened, and are doing just that. One company that hasn’t seemed to be listening closely though, is PepsiCo.

So together with two of our favorite Climate Mamas, Debra and Susan we are calling on another very powerful Mama, Indra Nooyi, CEO of Pepsico, to use her influence “to tell the truth, to use her actions to make positive change, and to show others that we needn’t be afraid to make the changes we have to, to ensure a sustainable and livable future for us all.”

Dear Ms. Nooyi, CEO of PepsiCo,

Our names are Harriet, Susan and Debra. We are three mothers who live in your community, in the tri-state area of Connecticut, New York and New Jersey. We are witnesses, first hand and in our own communities, to the impacts of climate change. Our thoughts, concerns, fears and hopes - are for our children, for their future and their now. We are reaching out to you in regards to the historic leadership opportunity you face right now on the issue of climate change and palm oil. We are writing as fellow mothers, daughters, and working women. We are representatives of and speak for thousands of mothers around the country - neighbors, friends, relatives, as well as Rainforest Action Network members, who share our concerns that climate change is a direct threat to our children’s future.

As part of the launch of Showtime's groundbreaking series Years of Living Dangerously in April, we and tens of thousands of concerned people signed onto a public petition asking you a question that remains unanswered: “Given that palm oil is known to be a major cause of carbon pollution causing climate change, and that you have spoken out that this is an issue that is important to you and that PepsiCo is a major global user of palm oil, how can you guarantee to your customers that the products PepsiCo produces are not contributing to climate change?”

PepsiCo is the largest globally distributed snack food company in the world. PepsiCo uses enough palm oil every single year to fill Pepsi cans full of palm oil that would stretch around the earth at the equator 4 times. Palm oil may seem to many like a minor issue, but in fact it is among the world's leading causes of deforestation, which in turn is responsible for nearly 20% of all carbon emissions. And, its found in the homes of nearly every American family, giving us the power to push for the changes that are so desperately needed.

As the leader of this incredibly influential company which has yet to take the necessary steps to address its Conflict Palm Oil problem, we urge you to answer this question publicly and take immediate action to ensure that PepsiCo adopts a truly responsible palm oil policy.

On September 21 the whole world will be watching leaders as the largest ever People's Climate March descends on New York City. We will march with thousands of families to shine a light on the companies, policies and practices that are slowing progress, and in fact accelerating climate change.

We are appealing to you to ask that PepsiCo announce the revisions to its currently inadequate policy in advance of the Climate March so that PepsiCo can be a company used to highlight leadership in implementing climate solutions, instead of an example of the problem. Specifically PepsiCo needs to adopt a time bound action plan to remove Conflict Palm Oil from its supply chain, make a commitment to trace its palm oil back to the plantation where it was grown and verify that its suppliers operations are free of the clearance of rainforest and peatlands and the violation of human rights including the use of forced and child labor.

As the head of a large corporation your voice is extremely powerful. We know that ensuring a secure supply line is critical for PepsiCo and that addressing climate change is part of your corporate social responsibility agenda. On a personal level, as a mother who wants every opportunity open to her children, we are sure that like us, climate change also weighs on your conscience; we urge you to answer this question and take action for your children’s hopes and future.

Sincerely,

Debra Mahony
Susan Rubin
Harriet Shugarman

So you slept through science class, part 3–Climate Change!

Tweet

You keep hearing about climate change, but you don’t know what to think.  All these “hundred year storms” – what’s the cause?  Is climate change actually happening?  Is it man-made or naturally-caused?  Are the estimates correct?

Well, you know my answer to those questions, but maybe you’d like to dive into the science.  Here’s your chance to take a short course on the science of climate change.  The National Environmental Education Foundation (NEEF) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have produced a series of courses on climate change.  The first course is longer and gives you a great overview of the entire issue.  After that, you can view 3 different, 15-minute modules on climate change and sea level rise, climate change and extreme weather, and climate change and regional impacts.  These courses are very thorough!  Go to EarthGauge for more information.

Greenmomsters, you owe it to your kids to get up-to-speed on this scientific information.  Learn the science; spring into action!

Let's talk about climate change!

Tweet

Yesterday, I attended an event called "Climate and Politics -- What's next for Virginia?"  Although everyone in the room understood the gravity of the current political situation, the discussion was very constructive.  One of the themes of the discussion was communication -- how do we communicate the science, the practical solutions, and the urgency of climate change?

Ed Maibach, Director of George Mason's Center for Climate Change Communication (4C) gave a fascinating presentation about climate change attitudes and communication.  He explained that research indicates that many U.S. citizens are aware of climate change and believe it's occurring, but that they're not acting or voting on the issue.  The next step is to figure out how to communicate climate change information in a way that encourages action.  George Mason's 4C is addressing the communication of basic climate information, as well as the fact that this scientific information has become very politicized.  One step they've taken is to team with Bob Inglis for outreach to conservative voters.

One of the most effective ways to transform knowledge into action is through "behavior modelling".  If people see other people taking action, the behavior seems more "normal," and people will follow along.  Sometimes, we see celebrities doing green stuff.  Athletes have jumped on board with #Sport4Climate.

The take-home message for greenmomsters is this:  we're the role models!  We need to be willing to educate, advocate, and model environmental behavior.  Not just for our kids.  We need to model for our friends, family, and coworkers.  Here's an interesting statistic from yesterday's presentation:

Yup, only 3 in 10 of us are speaking to our family and friends about climate change.  We need to start talking, not just to people with whom we agree, but with anyone who will listen.  The good news here is that we now have our marching orders.  Go out and start talking!

Global Day of Action to Cut Conflict Palm Oil

Tweet

Today, we have a guest post from Harriet Shugarman, Executive Director of Climate Mama.  Harriet is an inspirational leader guiding us all as we try to stop climate change. I encourage you to check out her website and her blog.  Please take a little time this Mother’s Day to learn about a Global Day of Action to Cut Conflict Palm Oil!

When problems seem overwhelming for our children, we remind them to take things “one day at time.” Amazingly, their problems often don’t seem so big or so overwhelming anymore.  On May 20, 2014, you and your family can join me and my family and thousands of other folks around the world as we take one day and create thousands and thousands of actions around ONE ask: PepsiCo The Power to Cut Conflict Palm Oil is #InYourPalm.

For most of us, making a difference and creating change around huge global problems like the destruction of the world’s rainforests and climate change seems way too big and too hard to imagine taking on. As parents, between work in and outside our homes, getting to and from lacrosse games, music and dance classes, putting nutritional meals on the table, arranging play dates for our kids, and finding time for the occasional play date of our own, our lives are full, busy, and regularly frenetic and hectic.  Yet as parents, our job is to create a safe, secure and sustainable future for our children, so taking on huge challenges like climate change is definitely in our job description. By “connecting the dots” between palm oil production, climate change, orangutan habitats, snack foods and our purchasing habits, we will be doing our job and protecting our children and the planet.

Join me and The Rainforest Action Network (RAN) on May 20^,th for a Global Day of Action to cut Conflict Palm Oil. Together we are demanding that PepsiCo stop using Conflict Palm Oil in its snack food brands and start helping us tackle and create solutions that will fight huge problems like climate change and deforestation. Join us as we show our children how powerful they can be and how solutions to seemingly overwhelming global problems can be positive, fun and sometimes, frankly, pretty simple when we tackle them together.

There are three easy steps: 

• First, check out our Day of Action Toolkit and come up with a vision for your photo action.
• Second, add the details of your photo action to the event map.
• Once you get your image, upload it to RAN’s Smug Mug Gallery and post it to Pepsi’s Facebook Wall with this message: #PepsiCo, the power to Cut Conflict Palm Oil is #InYourPalm.

Grab the kids in your life and watch and listen as Ashley Schaeffer Yildiz, a new mom and RAN Palm Oil Campaigner, shows us “how it’s done” by giving us some great ideas we can use to persuade some of the biggest companies in the world, the Snack Food 20, to join us and do the right thing. By changing where they source their palm oil these global companies can stop the production of Conflict Palm Oil which will help save important rainforests, slow down climate change and also protect the homes of some of the world’s last remaining orangutans.

These companies know that we are carefully watching what they do. In fact several of the major Snack Food 20 companies, including Mars, Kellogg, General Mills, Unilever and Nestle have recently responded to consumer outrage by announcing new commitments and the strengthening of their palm oil purchasing policies or sourcing practices. PepsiCo however, remains a key laggard.

Just as the Snack Food 20 have sourcing choices for their products we have choices too. We can choose to support brands and buy snack foods that don’t contain Conflict Palm Oil. And the good news… the power is #InYourPalm!  Call a family meeting today, and come up with your own family plan for the Global Day of Action. These actions can be big or small, in parks, on college campuses, at home, or even at Pepsi branded locations around the world. The beauty of the day of action is that each of our actions will be unique, but they'll have two things in common: they will include the words #InYourPalm in some way, shape or form and will connect our families to folks around the globe who are united in our efforts to end rainforest destruction caused by the production of Conflict Palm Oil.

Whether you are 8 or 80, the New York Times, The Union of Concerned Scientists, or even Ashley’s new baby boy, together we can “change the world” by taking on big problems one day at a time! Please join us and invite your family, friends and neighbors to take part in the May 20^th Global Day of Action to Cut Conflict Palm Oil, the power really is, #InYourPalm!

For more info, be sure to “Like” Greenmomster on Facebook!

The Push and Pull of Population Problems

Tweet

Back in the '80s, I took a sociology course at the College of William and Mary called "Population Problems" which I found fascinating.  The questions about human population, its current size, and future growth have been hot topics for well over 35 years.  The current human population is estimated at approximately 7 billion; human population is expected to top out at about 9 billion during the 21st century.

How do demographers know how many people to expect in the coming decades?  They use tools called "age structure diagrams" which show how many people are currently alive in various age groups.  Age structure diagrams can be used for cities, states, countries, or the entire world.  They basically allow us to see how many new people will be added to a population, depending on how many children each female has in her lifetime.

Why do we care about human population size?  It's an ecological question actually.  We know that the environment has a "carrying capacity" for every species.  Each ecosystem has just enough resources to support all the species found in that ecosystem.  The forests near my house have enough resources to support a certain number of oak trees, a certain number of squirrels, a certain number of mourning doves, etc.  If the population of squirrels is below the carrying capacity of the forest, the squirrel population can grow.  If the population of squirrels is above the carrying capacity, squirrels will leave or die until the population is close to the carrying capacity.  The environment has a carrying capacity for EVERY species, including humans.  Here's the catch:  no one knows Earth's carrying capacity for humans.

In addition to using up Earth's finite (yup, finite) resources, the number of humans on Earth also affects climate change.  An article in The Guardian this week reported on a study which found that having fewer children, or slowing population growth, is the personal strategy that has the biggest impact on slowing climate change.  The next best actions or strategies included living car-free and eating a vegetarian diet.  This study re-enforces what environmental experts have been saying for decades -- not a lot of new news here.

But just as the news about human impacts on resources and climate change are nothing new, neither are the nay-sayers.  The Washington Post this week published an opinion piece by Christine Emba in response to the Guardian article.  The opinion piece includes much mis-information that has been circulating for decades.  I am re-publishing this article here with my comments inserted to try to clear up the facts.


The overpopulation doomsayers are at it again. And they’re still wrong.


By Christine Emba


July 14, 2017 at 4:39 PM

Children are ruining the world, according to this week’s reporting at least. Greenmomster: The report did not say that children are ruining the world. The report stated that information regarding human carrying capacity and impacts on climate change is simply not being reported. The researchers found that environmental education focuses on much less effective means of controlling climate change, rather than focusing on the most effective means. The overpopulation doomsayers are at it again. Greenmomster: I'm assuming that the author is referring to the book, The Population Bomb (written several decades ago), which did indeed overstate population issues.


On Monday, France’s bright-eyed new president, Emmanuel Macron, found himself in hot water after a Group of 20 news conference in which he soliloquized about Africa’s “civilizational” challenges, including women who “have seven or eight” children.


On Wednesday, the Guardian published an article headlined “Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children.” That was its take on a newly published study suggesting governments and other influencers don’t spend enough time promoting the “most effective” (in terms of tonnage of carbon dioxide emissions avoided) personal strategies for climate mitigation: living car-free, avoiding airplane travel, eating a plant-based diet and, yes, having one fewer child. Researchers calculated that in the West, at least, choosing not to have an additional child meant a reduction of 58 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. Greenmomster: indeed, this is what the researchers stated. Nothing about children ruining the world.


There’s no doubt these arguments come from a place of sincerity, based on real concerns for the future. Yet the natural response also seems the correct one: You can’t be serious. Greenmomster: No that is not my natural response, and yes, I am serious. There are many reasons why people choose to have a certain number of children.  The health of the planet and the survival of future generations might very well be two of those reasons.


Demographic transitions are not without their difficulties. Growing populations can strain resources; an abundance of youths lacking opportunity can lead to instability. But increases in wealth and women’s education tend to lower fertility over time on their own. Greenmomster: This is exactly correct. As women's educational levels and family incomes increase, we see lower fertility levels. So what, exactly, are we recommending here? If not something akin to China’s heavy-handed demographic disaster, perhaps more countries that, like the French Republic Macron himself represents, are slouching toward sterility? Greenmomster: We are suggesting neither. As the author states in this opinion piece, the choice of family size is a deeply personal one based on many factors. No one is suggesting a draconian policy ala China's one-child policy. But neither are we suggesting burying our heads in the sand. What most demographers and environmental scientists suggest is increasing women's educational levels and family incomes throughout the world to help achieve a goal of a stable human population size. I suggest the author take a look at this TED talk. The suggestion that the rest of the world should hurry to imitate our way of life may not be as appealing as we think.


And then there’s the environment. To be clear: Climate change is real, is significantly influenced by human activity and is a problem of steadily increasing importance. If the near-100-degree weather in Washington this week did not agree with you, a Washington several degrees warmer in the coming decades will probably please you even less.


Yet solving the carbon dioxide emissions crisis will be more difficult than wishing away your oddly fecund neighbor’s fifth child. (And, yes, they see the way you look at their larger-than-average family when they’re in line at the grocery store.) Greenmomster: Wait. What? Did anyone proofread this opinion piece? No one is "wishing away [his] ......neighbor's fifth child." The discussion concerns the decision about family size. If you see me looking at you funny in the grocery store line, it's probably because one of the five kids is about to fall out of the cart or beating up his sibling. If that's not happening, you're just seeing my resting Kanye face -- I've got my own stuff to ponder, thank you very much. The culprit behind the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere is less the child himself than the consumption ramped up alongside the child: the resources that wealthy (and usually Western) parents demand and the corporations they enable. Having one fewer child — or haranguing those who choose not to — won’t shut down ExxonMobil, reverse the Industrial Revolution or even push our president back into the Paris climate accord. Greenmomster: The writer is exactly right -- the issue isn't the absolute number of people; it's their consumption level. So I'd like to follow up with a question -- how has the author cut her consumption lately? Did she give up any overseas trips this year? Does she own a car? Does she eat meat? And even if the answer to all of those questions is "yes", that's still not enough to slow climate change significantly if she lives in a "developed" country. Is she planning to scale back her consumption to the levels of the average citizen of Kenya or Peru? If so, can she guarantee that her offspring -- as many as she wants to have -- will also limit their consumption to developing world standards?


Of course, this much is obvious. And of course there’s the obvious reply: “Well, if everyone did it, it just might work.” But funnily enough, that never quite seems to pan out. Greenmomster: It's sad when someone, whom I presume is much younger than I am, has such a jaded outlook on life and our potential for improving the world.


After all, Western finger-waggers seem to have no compunction with traveling around the world to expand their families by any means necessary, pursuing anything from expensive (and no doubt resource-intensive) fertility treatments to surrogacy in the same countries where they urge citizens to contracept more fervently. Greenmomster: I'm not sure how many "finger-waggers" the author has met, but the people who limit their fertility for environmental reasons are not the folks who are trying to build a family through fertility treatments or surrogacy. These are two different groups of people. And by the way, I think adoption is a great option -- here's my earlier post on the topic.


When the enlightened advocates among us hand down recommendations, one has the nagging feeling that they’re envisioning less themselves and their compatriots than more easily caricatured others — the poor, the black and the brown, those Third World women whose lives, they imagine, are sad and difficult anyway, who would probably welcome having one or two fewer children. Greenmomster: untrue and again insulting. Many environmentally aware folks choose to limit their own fertility and do not just point at "the poor, the black and the brown." I am one of those people. It’s an ugly sort of paternalism, well-meant but fundamentally chilling. At its core, it denies the humanity of others. Greenmomster: Again. Wait. What? On what evidence does the author base her statement, that is -- anyone who encourages a slowing of population growth is a paternalistic racist? Climate change will most harshly affect the poor, both in the U.S. and in the Third World (think about Bangladesh). The people of Kiribati don't see a plan to curb climate change as "an ugly sort of paternalism." Never heard of Kiribati? Time to do your homework -- here's a primer.


But the deepest argument, perhaps, is more philosophical than scientific. It’s the rare person who isn’t saddened by environmental degradation. We all want to make the world a better, more liveable place. But children are not interchangeable widgets that we choose one more or one fewer of according to the dictates of emissions efficiency. For whom are we scrambling to save the planet, if not future generations? What is the world if there’s no one to live in it? Greenmomster: No environmental scientist is suggesting that children are "interchangeable widgets". Let's remember that, as citizens of Planet Earth, we are all on the same team. We want to hand to our children a healthy environment with resources for all. I agree with the writer that we must reduce consumption, but I also know that we greatly stress the environment when we allow the world's human population to soar over 9 billion. I've committed to lower fertility and a vegetarian lifestyle, along with other lifestyle choices. What is the author's commitment to the goal?

TBT–Where are our climate change marchers?

Tweet

There are several big climate change rallies/hearings happening across the nation next week – and you can get involved!  This week’s TBT is a post I wrote last summer after some of the other rallies I’ve attended.  Be sure to get updates on all the greenest news -- "Like" greenmomster on Facebook!

This week our nation celebrates the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, a revolutionary event in American history that helped to encourage racial equality in this country -- truly a great event to celebrate.  But as I looked at the front page of the newspaper today, I couldn’t help but think, “Where are the climate change marchers?  Where are the hundreds of thousands of citizens, willing to march today to change policies that affect not just every American, but every person on the planet?”

On this page, I’ve written about my family’s experiences, marching against the current lack of fracking regulations and for the need for alternatives to fossil fuels.  When the crowds got to 30,000, we were thrilled!  But as millions of people are threatened with permanent loss of their homes due to sea level rise or due to ever-increasing natural disasters caused by climate fluctuations, shouldn’t the climate change crowds be bigger?  As oceans become more acidic, due to man-made input of CO2, shouldn’t our congressional representatives’ phones be ringing off the hook?  As species go extinct because they can’t move quickly enough to adjust to climate change, shouldn’t the outcry be deafening?

I usually try to stay upbeat and positive about environmental issues and challenges, but today’s news for some reason affected me differently.  After over 20 years of scientists warning us of the dire affects of climate change, I just have to ask, “where are our marchers?”

Now will we listen?

Tweet

For decades, scientists have been reporting that the Earth’s climate is changing.  Greenmomster has written posts about the health, environmental, and security issues associated with climate change.  We’ve written letters, met activitists, and attended protests.  At a local level, I’m thankful for many folks who spend several weeks each year working with state legislators to enact climate change legislation. 

Now the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a new report regarding the effects of climate change.  The report discusses necessary actions to slow the causes of climate change, and also encourages actions to adapt to the changes we can’t avoid.  Here’s the Summary for Policy Makers.  Be sure to scroll to the charts at the end that outline the possible outcomes of climate change on each continent and their probability (ie. high confidence of increased human deaths due to temperature extremes in North America and high confidence in North America of “urban floods in riverine and coastal areas inducing property and infrastructure damage; supply chain, ecosystem, and social system disruption; public health impacts”).  If you’d like a short summary and video on the report, check out this Washington Post article.  The future for North America isn’t great, but think about the folks in Kiribati:

Why I’m Marching on February 17

Tweet

I’m joining the big climate change march on Washington on February 17.  I’m not marching because I think the weather’s going to be great (it’s not).  I’m not marching because I love the atmosphere created by a crowd of thousands, hopefully hundreds of thousands (I don’t).   I’m not marching because I don’t have any other better things to do (I’m kinda busy these days).  Here are my top 5 reasons for joining the march:

1. In his inaugural speech, President Obama stated ““We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations” (NY Times 2013).  I want the President to know that I expect him to fulfill this promise.
2. On Gerry Connolly’s website (my congressional representative), the congressman states, “In the 111^thCongress, Congressman Connolly helped pass the largest investment in clean energy in American history and supported legislation to reduce global warming pollution and reform offshore oil drilling.” (Connolly website ND)  I’m marching to let my representative know that I support his efforts and expect continued action in the same direction.
3. In my opinion, my senator, Mark Warner, has sent mixed signals regarding his commitment to stopping climate change.  He has supported development of some alternative fuel projects, while also co-sponsoring the Offshore Petroleum Expansion Now Act of 2012 (Warner website ND).  I’m marching to tell my senator that, on the issue of climate change, I expect him to lead definitively – you can’t have it both ways.
4. Our new senator, Tim Kaine, needs to know that the folks he represents feel strongly about climate change.
5. The photo shows you my primary reason for marching on February 17.  I’m a mom, and I care about the environment that my children will inherit.

Hope to see you at the march!

 

Sources:

Connolly website.  ND.  “Environment”  Accessed 2/9/13 http://connolly.house.gov/environment/

Stevenson, R.W and J.M. Broder.  2013. “Speech Gives Climate Goals Center Stage.”  The New York Times, January 21, 2013.  Accessed online 2/9/13 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/us/politics/climate-change-prominent-in-obamas-inaugural-address.html?_r=0

Warner website.  ND.  “Energy”  Accessed 2/9/13 http://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/energy1

Climate change–time to speak up…..again!

Tweet

Today’s Washington Post editorial page included a letter from George F. Steeg of Potomac Falls.  In his letter, Mr. Steeg presents several points which he feels bring into question the validity of climate change science and the causes of climate change.  It’s surprising that the W. Post chose to run this letter, because many of Mr. Steeg’s arguments are the same old stuff brought up time and time again.  But for those who need a refresher on the topic, let’s go through a few of the arguments:

1. Mr. Steeg states, “atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have exceeded current levels multiple times in the life of Earth, and the planet has recovered.”  Right you are, Mr. Steeg!  But here’s what you left out – each of these carbon levels was followed by a mass extinction of species on the planet, and although the planet did recover, it always took several million years. 
2. Mr. Steeg states, “Correlating climate change only with carbon dioxide concentrations ignores variations in sun intensity and Earth’s orbital dynamics.”  The correlation actually doesn’t ignore sun intensity, etc.  Scientists have checked into the sunspot hypothesis and others, and the evidence seems to overwhelmingly point back at greenhouse gases coming from man-made sources.
3. Mr. Steeg states, “Some scientists argue that changes in Earth’s climate occur every 1,500 years and conclude that the cycles are unstoppable by human intervention.”  Really?  How many scientists make this statement?  The current changes are not part of a cycle.  They’ve occurred over approximately 100-150 years and they’re happening faster than species can adapt.

I know climate change is scary, but burying our heads in the sand is not the way to address the issue.  As generations before have done when confronted with daunting challenges, we must look the challenge of climate change in the eye and find a solution.

24 Hours of Reality

Tweet

Beginning tomorrow, November 14, at 8pm, the Climate Reality Project will begin a 24 hour presentation on climate change and what the group calls “Dirty Weather.”  This live online broadcast will include information about climate change and what we need to do to change the future.  As stated by the Climate Reality Project, “this event will put a spotlight on every region of the globe — featuring news, voices, and multimedia content across all 24 time zones. Every hour will be different. You’ll hear from experts, musicians, comedians, and everyday people about the impacts of climate change on their lives and homes.”  This 24 hours is going to be a great chance for greenmomsters to learn about the science behind climate change, the impacts of climate change, and what we can do to limit its impacts on our global environment.  I hope you’ll be able to join me in watching at least part of this important presentation!

Where are the climate change marchers?

Tweet

Be sure to get updates on all the greenest news -- "Like" greenmomster on Facebook!

This week our nation celebrates the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, a revolutionary event in American history that helped to encourage racial equality in this country -- truly a great event to celebrate.  But as I looked at the front page of the newspaper today, I couldn’t help but think, “Where are the climate change marchers?  Where are the hundreds of thousands of citizens, willing to march today to change policies that affect not just every American, but every person on the planet?” 

On this page, I’ve written about my family’s experiences, marching against the current lack of fracking regulations and for the need for alternatives to fossil fuels.  When the crowds got to 30,000, we were thrilled!  But as millions of people are threatened with permanent loss of their homes due to sea level rise or due to ever-increasing natural disasters caused by climate fluctuations, shouldn’t the climate change crowds be bigger?  As oceans become more acidic, due to man-made input of CO2, shouldn’t our congressional representatives’ phones be ringing off the hook?  As species go extinct because they can’t move quickly enough to adjust to climate change, shouldn’t the outcry be deafening?

I usually try to stay upbeat and positive about environmental issues and challenges, but today’s news for some reason affected me differently.  After over 20 years of scientists warning us of the dire affects of climate change, I just have to ask, “where are our marchers?”