- Energy and Global Warming News for August 10: World's poorest women set to suffer most from climate change; American Psychological Association examines the behavior behind climate inaction
- Suggestions for guest blog posts?
- Boxer considers modified 'price collar' for climate bill
- NYT: Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security
- Drudge advertises "conservative humor" T-shirt: "I'd rather be waterboarding."
Posted: 10 Aug 2009 08:24 AM PDT
The full report is here. See also "Anti-science conservatives are stuck in denial but for climate science activists, the reverse is true."
Posted: 10 Aug 2009 07:30 AM PDT
While I am on (70%) vacation, it seems like a good time to repost or excerpt some of the other terrific climate material on the blogosphere.
So I am soliciting suggestions for such articles. You can suggest your own post. I can't guarantee I will reprint everything. And I certainly prefer things from blogs that don't already have high readership, say, blogs with web sites that rank greater than 100,000 on Alexa.
Posted: 10 Aug 2009 05:54 AM PDT
I try to stay ahead of the curve on climate science, clean energy solutions, and carbon politics. This time my discussion of the price collar issue along with my specific proposal "How the Senate can fix cost containment in the climate bill with 'price collar plus' " came less than 24 hours before the remarks that E&E News PM (subs. req'd) reported.
The article goes on to make clear that Boxer does not support the traditional — and environmentally flawed — price collar whereby the government to sells an unlimited number of allowances that represent no emissions reduction whatsoever at the ceiling price, but rather something closer to what I suggested:
Indeed, fence-sitting Senators and industries can legitimately see price collar plus as achieving stronger cost-containment protection than their analysis suggests the House bill now provides, including protection against speculators running the permit price up, while progressives can legitimately see PCoP as achieving better environmental outcomes than their analysis suggests the House bill now provides. Win-win.
Posted: 09 Aug 2009 11:40 AM PDT
So begins the excellent lead story by John Broder in today's NY Times. This won't surprise regular readers — indeed, last September I wrote about an unusually savvy new intelligence forecast on global risks "previewed in a speech by Thomas Fingar, the U.S. intelligence community's top analyst" which
Thank you George Bush and Dick Cheney and your fellow deniers for delaying action so long has to make such an outcome all but inevitable!
The photo above is from Darfur. The NYT notes, "The conflict in southern Sudan, which has killed and displaced tens of thousands of people, is partly a result of drought in Darfur." A 2007 Atlantic Monthly piece, "The Real Roots of Darfur," went further, asserting, "The violence in Darfur is usually attributed to ethnic hatred. But global warming may be primarily to blame."
And we haven't even warmed 1°C yet! We're facing more than five times as much warming the century as the last century on our current emissions path. How much conflict and misery will be caused when we have turned one third of the Earth's inhabited land mass into a Dust Bowl and sea levels are more than a meter higher and the oceans are increasingly hot, acidified dead zone, which is what the second half of the century holds in store when we blow past 550 ppm on route to 850 to 1000 ppm or more?
The NYT offers this grim scenario:
One military exercise "explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure."
The UK government's chief scientist, Professor John Beddington, laid out a similar scenario in a March speech to the government's Sustainable Development UK conference in Westminster. He warned that by 2030, "A 'perfect storm' of food shortages, scarce water and insufficient energy resources threaten to unleash public unrest, cross-border conflicts and mass migration as people flee from the worst-affected regions," as the UK's Guardian put it. The NYT continues:
I do think this is an important argument to make to Senators, many of whom see themselves as historical figures playing on the world stage. Indeed, this is part of the even bigger message that Senators who vote to block the national action — and hence vote to kill any chance of a global deal — will be remembered for condemning the next 50 generations to unimaginable misery and strife.
BUT as serious as this argument is, it's equally important not to leave people with the impression that one is arguing global warming is mainly going to impact other countries, and not us. The United States will be directly devastated by climate change if we don't rapidly reverse emissions trends (see "Intro to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water " and Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year — and that isn't the worst case, it's business as usual!).
For more discussion of the kind of wars we might be seeing, albeit for the year 2046, here is a three-part radio series on Climate Wars.
The time to act is yesterday.
Posted: 09 Aug 2009 10:28 AM PDT
One of the revolving ads at the top of the homepage of one of the leading purveyors of disinformation on global warming, the Drudge Report:
Self-described conservative "humor" — with a lengthy definition of "humor" at the top of the t-shirt website just in case for some reason you didn't get that this was humorous!
Seriously, torturing people is just so damn funny. Stop it, you're killing me.
|You are subscribed to email updates from Climate Progress |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|