Group items tagged

Short, but significant. Jim Sensenbrenner has announced that his committee on energy independence will be shutting down. The Select Committee on Energy Independence was called a waste of money. Calls to mind Julie Guthman's call to turn to policy and work on policy for environmental issues. Granted, that was agriculture, and this is energy, but ultimately I wonder if in this climate that is a waste or resources, or if because of the antagonism efforts to work on policy were never more necessary. I tend to lean toward the former camp, but still. This may not be all bad news, due to Jim Sensenbrenner. I can't help but do a little bashing. He's from my district, and I've never seen a politician get into so many flustered arguments with high school student's - and adult constituents. Commonly he has given the response "its a complicated issue, you wouldn't understand" to those who have question some of his policy decisions. He also made headlines for storming out of a committee meeting, gavel in hand, after members of the committee asked him to follow the rules of parliamentary procedure. I digress, but this committee was never being run in a way that was tremendously supportive of the climate change initiatives environmental groups tend to desire, and would likely have returned to that state. So it may not be such a bad thing that it is out of the way. Still an important foreshadow of where energy policy has fallen in the political landscape - clearly less of a priority than in the past, for both parties.

I think it's depressing. Although climate change and energy independence could arguably fall under the committees on natural resources and energy/commerce, the fact that there is no longer a committee that specifically targets these issues means they can more easily be ignored. What types of climate change initiatives was the committee against? I don't agree that it might be worth it to cut a somewhat effective committee that specifically targets climate change when there's no replacement for it. Passing climate policy in this climate will probably be difficult. But it will probably be a lot more difficult now that there isn't a group of people working on it directly. I think it was important in changing the view that climate change is a "Democratic" concern and getting Republican support for climate initiatives. At minimum, I think its presence was important in making sure the debate continues to be about what the largest concerns are/ what we can do to address them rather than whether or not climate change exists or not. Sensenbrenner: "While I was initially skeptical of the select committee's mission, it ultimately provided a forum for bipartisan debate and an opportunity for House Republicans to share a different view on the pressing energy and environment issues that we currently face."

Not only are our political leaders talking less about doing something about climate change; the American public seem to be a lot less worried about it too. This article discusses why, and links to a recent Pew survey that chronicles the decline in public interest. This big change in political and popular discourse around climate change offers a good opportunity to rethink environmental studies and environmentalism as we move forward in these changed times.

Wait a second, I just looked at the entire quiz and the whole thing is about climate change. And more than a few questions were a bit vague.  Hmmm..."environmental knowledge"..."how green you are"...

The survey is legitimate (sort of... a bunch of the questions could use reworking, and the way they are asked is really misleading), but the title that the Oregonian chose is awful. I'm not sure how much it adds to the correlation of people associating climate change only with environmentalism (I think this was just a really poorly chosen headline, done by someone who is unfamiliar with issues), but I do think it is very interesting regarding the article from Grist that Julia posted recently on what to call people who care about climate change. And... this wasn't even close to a "quiz", as the Oregonian decided to call it. It's most certainly a survey (given the abundance of the likert scale in the questions), and it definitely doesn't test "environmental knowledge". The survey appears to be prodding for uncertainty, and controversy even. I think they will get polarized results, and I also think that these results will be that way because of how incredibly thoroughly climate change has been politicized.

I like these readers' comments: portlandiowa October 22, 2010 at 8:04AM "The researchers gave more than half of those who answered their quiz a grade of "F."" Probably those that didn't answer with the same personal opinions as the researchers on the cause of global warming. An engaged citizen October 22, 2010 at 10:07AM There's the problem right there, portlandiowa - those who are confused about the difference between theology (a system of beliefs) and science. Or even worse, those who think SCIENTISTS are confused between the two. I dunno.... I might agree with portlandiowa. And I'm a Bio/Chem Major??

"[Matthew Kahn's] new book, Climatopolis: How Our Cities Will Thrive in the Hotter Future, argues that while it's too late to avoid the major effects of global warming, that's OK because most people will simply move to places that are effectively adapting to the changes. " An intriguing argument on the side of the climate debate we tend to ignore. Kahn believes that it's too late to stop global climate change or even slow it to a noticeable degree, yet he offers some optimistic opinions about what this could mean for humanity. For those who may not like the idea of giving up the "stop global warming" campaign, this interview offers some insight to the rationale behind this perspective. (I dont feel like my tags capture all the topics here, suggestions?)

There's an interesting difference between (some) meteorologists and (almost all) climatologists over the anthropogenic factor in climate change; this article discusses a recent meeting in Portland primarily attended by skeptical meteorologists. Why the difference? Is it that meteorologists tend to focus on weather vs. climate, i.e., attend to different spatiotemporal scales? Or is it something about who decides to become a meteorologist vs. climatologist and what sort of training is necessary?

Columnist Charles Blow begins by comparing the haves and have nots to climate change: "Is income inequality becoming the new global warming? In other words, is this another case where the facts of an existential threat lose traction among a weary American public as deniers attempt to reduce them to partisan opinions?" I suspect you can guess how he answers that question: as he gloomily concludes, "If denial is a river, it runs through doomed societies." Maybe it's time to better understand denial in all its forms, not just denial of anthropogenic environmental change, if we want to understand why such serious threats receive so little action.

Could Mt. Everest be the Panda of movements attempting to address issues of global warming? It isn't exactly charismatic megafauna, but maybe for climactic problems a bit of "charismatic geology" could do the trick?

Primitive stoves that produce toxic smoke are one of the leading causes for death and disease in third world countries. It is also a huge driver of climate change. Proposal to provide 100 million clean burning stoves to villages in Africa, Asia, and South America

Apparently windmills cause climate change too, both macro and micro. Not much to say depth wise, I just thought it was interesting. Does pose potential challenges to wind expansion in the future, perhaps.

This brief article shows how global food prices (like cereal grains) are on the rise, while commodity prices (like oil) are actually falling. It also touches on connections between global climate change and food production.

Check out this interesting debate, with lots of money already invested!, over the possibility of a high-tech fix to global warming by scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere, once rejected out of hand but now seriously considered given our failure to enact policies to limit GHG emissions...amazing how the discussion changes in a matter of a few short years!...

Rare enough, but it seems emissions actually dropped this year - in part due to natural patterns. Academic studies of the environment are often depressing in a number of ways, so its nice to have some good news by traditional environmental standards. Hard to know what the source of it is, but it seems like at least some efforts are working out. Deforestation efforts get particular credit.

Bad news on the economy: Article touches on the same news, but gives a lot more credit (probably fairly) to a faltering world economy. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40298983/ns/world_news-world_environment/

Grasshopper, anyone? This article expands upon a notion I have heard about several times before, but haven't considered its possibilities on large-scale. Many countries, such as Japan and Mexico, are already comfortable with bug consumption. It has proven to be extremely nutritious in amino acids and protein. It is also very efficient space-wise, as discovered in Japan. No matter the practicality of bugs in curbing global warming, the consumers must be willing to eat them. In American culture, bugs are perceived as dirty and disease-ridden. What would it take to reshape citizens' attitude around bugs to allow this expansion?

A short editorial on the well-financed mounting opposition against AB 32 in California, a law passed in 2006 aiming to reduce greenhouse gas levels. The opposition is lead by energy companies fearful of the cutback in gasoline consumption and by critics of global warming (due to man-made emissions), who are pouring in a lot of money to kill the law. Needless to say, not the most uplifting article.

From everybody's favorite National Review, a case for global warming - not only existing, but being really, really awesome. And this claim is even claimed to be based on science. Pretty interesting way of thinking. Especially once you accept that change is going to happen, there is something to be said for the logic of we-should-strive-to-maximize-primary-productivity-in-ecosystems (arguably). Really curious what people think, particularly the more ecologically and biologically minded among us.

A lot of American restoration efforts tend to aim Pre-Columbian. But really, that is pretty arbitrary (and problematic - humans were intimately involved with Pre-Columbian environments, as well as post-contact environments). So why not aim further back? This Russian physicist is doing just that - for fun, and setting his standard back 10,000 years. But there is more to it. This could be part of a huge effort by this fellow to stop arctic melting, a positive feedback loop that accelerates and is accelerated by global warming. If humanity blew the first task of an intelligent tinkerer in not keeping all the parts, can it repair that by trying to put the parts back? I'll be interested to see where it goes. Plenty of the usual restoration discussions to be had.

So, we can (and should) address domestic poster-child coal issues such as mountaintop removal, but let's not get complacent about the larger coal market: this article talks about the role China will play as a huge source of consumption.  What to do?

I'm not going to lie, I didn't see this coming. I'm sure many analysts did -- the U.S. makes tighter coal related regulations, but there is still tons of coal under the ground to be mined. Consequently, it should only make sense to the king of market economy countries that we would export the resource we can't use to a country that can. For all members of groups that have been working against coal domestically, this represents one of the biggest losses they can imagine. After making strides on regulation, one person quoted in this article said that it was one step forward (at home), but ten back (for the world). I've at least operated under the idea that if we can make coal unpalatable enough, we would stop burning it. We're working towards that, as is Europe. But the fact remains that there are "jobs" to be had mining, money to be made exporting, and so the story goes. And even if the U.S. were to regulate coal exports (which is something the free trade maniacs of the new Congress will never, ever let happen), China would turn to Australia, or Canada, or Brazil. This dilemma is crying out for a comprehensive strategy of global cooperation on climate change. But, as is most likely the case, Cancun will slide by, no new agreements will come out of it, and this new coal challenge will become just another part of the mired story of the inability of the world to stop burning all that it is burning. One of those rare and terrifying articles that asks serious questions about how we are to subvert a framework that encourages coal burning and other major externalities.

This LA Times article talks about a newly released study from the economics department at San Francisco State. The study discusses the effect of sea-level rise on tourism in California. While sea-level has been rising globally for the last few decades, the west coast has largely been spared, however, as the study shows, this grace period may not last much longer.