TheGreenFront presents: This Day in Climate History (hat tip to Joseph Romm) January 26, 2011: Prof. Robert Brulle of Drexel University rips President Obama for avoiding any specific mention of climate change in his 2011 State of the Union Address, noting: What I see going on here is that Obama is following the rhetorical advice of David Axelrod and groups like ecoAmerica, who argue that the American public is unwilling to deal with climate change. So rather than make the case for climate change and the necessity of action, this approach focuses on clean energy and research and development as a way to make a transition to a different energy mix. This is considered the popular, no pain, energy quest approach that relies on a mystical belief in R&D to address climate change. The Obama administration appears to have bought this approach completely as the politically popular way to address this issue. In my opinion, this approach has several major drawbacks, and effectively locks in massive and potentially catastrophic global climate change. thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/01/26/207407/brulle-climate-change-obama-sotu-address/ January 26, 2013: MSNBCs Chris Hayes praises President Obamas vow to combat climate change in his State of the Union address, and notes that Obama can take action to cut carbon emissions despite the House of Representatives depraved kind of denialism on climate. msnbc.msn/id/21134540/vp/50597193#50597193 January 26, 2014: The New York Times reports on state-level efforts by Republicans to promote renewable energy. nytimes/2014/01/26/us/politics/fissures-in-gop-as-some-conservatives-embrace-renewable-energy.html January 26, 2015: • The New York Times reports: Alaska is not a sinking ship, but no one needed an explanation of the gallows-humor remark, as a record-setting sea of red ink has flooded the state budget amid a global collapse of energy prices. Taxes paid by oilcompanies account for 90 percent of the state’s operating budget, and those revenues have sunk with stomach-churning suddenness and depth, echoing other oil-patch states, like Texas, but with uniquely Alaskan scale and implications. The result, historians and economists say, is beyond the experience of this state, or probably any other in modern times: more than half of the tax base — predicated on crude oil selling at around $110 a barrel — is simply gone in the whirlwind of $50 oil, as though it never existed. A spending plan of $6.1 billion for 2015, passed by the Legislature last year, will fall $3.5 billion short, or more, if oil prices keep falling. Alaska collects no state sales or income taxes to pick up the slack; a savings fund from past oil earnings will help, but it cannot fully fill the gap either. nytimes/2015/01/26/us/as-oil-falls-alaskas-new-chief-faces-a-novel-goal-frugality.html • In the Los Angeles Times, writer Jonathan Mingle observes: This week, President Obama is the chief guest of Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Indias Republic Day celebrations. At the close of the historic visit, the two leaders are expected to announce cooperation on a suite of climate and clean energy measures, with the ultimate goal of reining in Indias rapidly rising carbon dioxide emissions. But during his visit, the president, just like New Delhis 25 million residents, will be exposed to another kind of dangerous carbon pollution: black carbon. Black carbon is scientists term for ultra-fine particles produced by incomplete combustion. Its the stuff that makes soot dark, an unwanted byproduct of burning diesel fuel in vehicles, biomass in stoves for cooking and heating, coal in small industrial operations and agricultural waste in post-harvest fields. Humanity sends as much as 17 million metric tons of black carbon each year into the atmosphere, where it traps far more heat per unit mass than carbon dioxide, making it the second-biggest contributor to global warming. Its also a major constituent of the pollution that is now choking New Delhi. On a typical day, the Indian capital has the worst air quality of any city in the world, according to a recent U.N. report. But the air is particularly bad this time of year, as particles are trapped by cold, dense fog. So theres a good chance the president will have a hard time seeing the celebration through all the haze. On last years Republic Day, particulate matter under 2.5 microns in diameter, which penetrates deep into human lungs, spiked to 15 times the level deemed safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. latimes/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0126-mingle-u-s--india-climate-black-carbon-20150126-story.html • The Los Angeles Times editorial page observes: Earlier this month, Pope Francis made news when he said that not only was climate change real, but it was mostly man-made. Then, last week, he said that couples do not need to breed like rabbits but rather should plan their families responsibly — albeit without the use of modern contraception. Though the pope did not directly link the two issues, climate scientists and population experts sat up and took notice. Thats because for years, they have quietly discussed the links between population growth and global warming, all too aware of the sensitive nature of the topic. Few of them can forget the backlash after then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in 2009 that it was strange to talk about climate change without mentioning population and family planning. Critics immediately suggested that she was calling for eugenics, thus shutting down the conversation and pushing the issue back into the shadows. The popes support of smaller families might help that discussion come back into the light, where it belongs. Sensitive subject or not, the reality is that unsustainable human population growth is a potential disaster for efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. These days, the biggest population growth is occurring in developing nations, which is why any discussion must be sensitive to the perception that well-off, industrialized nations — the biggest climate polluters, often with majority-white populations — might be telling impoverished people of color to reduce their numbers. In fact, person for person, reducing birth rates in industrialized nations has a bigger impact on greenhouse gas emissions because affluent people use more of the Earths resources and depend more heavily on fossil fuels. latimes/opinion/editorials/la-ed-population-and-climate-change-20150125-story.html
Posted on: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:18:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015