West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
China has become more capitalistic and worried about the long-term effects of climate change on its economy than the West Virginia coal apparatchiks who rise and cheer in support of the coal industry despite the massive harm it is doing to the state and the people.
Global warming threatens China's march to prosperity by cutting crops, shrinking rivers and unleashing more droughts and floods, says the government's latest assessment of climate change, projecting big shifts in how the nation feeds itself.
The warnings are carried in the government's "Second National Assessment Report on Climate Change," which sums up advancing scientific knowledge about the consequences and costs of global warming for China -- the world's second biggest economy and the biggest emitter of greenhouse gas pollution.
Global warming fed by greenhouse gases from industry, transport and shifting land-use poses a long-term threat to China's prosperity, health and food output, says the report. With China's economy likely to rival the United States' in size in coming decades, that will trigger wider consequences.
"China faces extremely grim ecological and environmental conditions under the impact of continued global warming and changes to China's regional environment," says the 710-page report, officially published late last year but released for public sale only recently.
Meanwhile the coal apparatchiks in West Virginia spout coal propaganda the way communists used to quote their phony ideological propaganda.
Sadly our coal apparatchiks can't look past their next coal company campaign contribution to consider the long-term detrimental effects of their policies on the state's workers and economy.
Ken Ward Jr. ponders the question at Coal Tattoo. Too many of our politicians bury their heads in the coal ash so they can't see the sky needs cleaned up.
You can't be friends with coal. You can't be a friend of coal. You can't be coal's enemy or out to destroy coal or declare a war on coal. Coal is just a black rock. To be more specific, it's a "black or dark brown mineral substance consisting of carbonized vegetable matter." It cannot be your friend or your enemy.
I am writing this in response to the many articles, editorials, ads, billboards, radio spots and just run of the mill conversations that I have seen and heard concerning coal since I moved back to the Ohio Valley last summer. I am tired of the all or nothing, with us or against us attitude that so many seem to have around this issue. People claim to be "friends of coal" and berate imagined scary liberals in Washington who are out to "destroy coal."
Scott Calvin, Professor of Physics at Sarah Lawrence College has graciously provided permission to reprint this diary that originally appeared at DemConWatchBlog.
By Scott Calvin
With the death of cap and trade, significant climate change is now inevitable. Sooner or later, we will reach a tipping point, at which point climate change is not just a prediction, or a small effect that needs to be teased out by careful statistical analysis. Sooner or later, there will be a year where the cumulative effects of climate change will become undeniable. What would that year look like?
First of all, to be undeniable, we want it to be a year that "should" be cool according to other factors. Solar cycles add some variability to the Earth's temperature, so a year toward the end of a deep solar minimum would be good. El Niño is a natural phenomenon that tends to raise the temperature of the globe, so to be convincing it shouldn't be an El Niño year--ideally, it should be a La Niña year, when the Earth would be expected to be cooler. If the planet still experienced record warmth under those conditions, we'd know it was due to climate change, and not just a perfect storm of natural cycles.
The extreme heat would trigger drought and fire. Picture one of the world's great capitals shrouded in smoke from the country side for a week--that warning would be hard to miss, wouldn't it?
Heat triggers evaporation, and evaporation falls back to earth as rain and snow, so this year would likely also be the wettest on record, generating extreme floods. Imagine a "thousand-year flood" in a US city, submerging the central city. Entire countries would suffer from severe, unprecedented flooding, creating humanitarian catastrophes.
And then there are the inexorable changes--direct manifestations of climate. Island nations would be making plans for the day they need to leave their drowning homeland. Coral reefs would die en masse. And most dramatically, the familiar image of the Earth from space, with its white polar caps, would be forever changed, as the northern cap dwindles away in the summer.
Think this is alarmist? Evidence for this scenario below the jump.
McClatchy has an interesting article by Charles Mead and Annie Snider on why the CIA is spying on climate change effects globally:
For the analyst, who heads the CIA's year-old Center on Climate Change and National Security, the worst natural disaster in Pakistan's history was a warning.
"It has the exact same symptoms you would see for future climate change events, and we're expecting to see more of them," he said later, agreeing to talk only if his name were not revealed, for security reasons. "We wanted to know: What are the conditions that lead to a situation like the Pakistan flooding? What are the important things for water flows, food security ... radicalization, disease" and displaced people?
As intelligence officials assess key components of state stability, they are realizing that the norms they had been operating with - such as predictable river flows and crop yields - are shifting.
Yet the U.S. government is ill-prepared to act on climate changes that are coming faster than anticipated and threaten to bring instability to places of U.S. national interest, interviews with several dozen current and former officials and outside experts and a review of two decades' worth of government reports indicate.
Someone reminded us the other day of Clem's 2010 challenge to lessen our carbon impact. I increased my recycling probably 10-fold, cut my miles driven by roughly 25 percent, and took no airplane trips last year. I've also been working on cutting my water usage too though I didn't actually track it since I never go over the amount for the minimum bill.
So there is a lot we can do as individuals. At the same time, I saw a bumper sticker today saying "Going green is the new communism" and we have two U.S. senators who don't want the Environmental Protection Agency to be able to protect the environment. So I think it's a comforting myth to some that we can do things as individuals that make a difference if we also don't have national leaders recognizing the reality of the future we face and enact changes on a larger scale. It's going to take all of us acting locally and acting globally to save the only planet we've got.
It'd be great if there were sensible Republicans and coal-state Democrats who could be convinced of the economic benefits that are there from moving to environmentally friendly energy sources.
However the last sensible Republicans are keeping quiet to avoid being primaried out of the party and the coal-state Democrats can't hear us and the alarm-bells sounding for the planet because they're too busy listening to the coal industry lobbyists.
As the Republicans take control this week in the U.S. House of Representatives, even some Democrats - like West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockfeller - are joining the bandwagon to attack Obama administration efforts to deal with some of the problems caused by our reliance on the coal industry.
Sen. Rockefeller told Politico that he's raring to go in his controversial bid to handcuff the Environmental Protection Agency's climate regulations for two year. At the same time, former Democratic House member Rick Boucher of Virginia reminds us that the climate change bill that passed the House had plenty of stuff in it to help the coal industry try to survive and control its greenhouse gas emissions
The photo above isn't much to look at and at first glance probably seems insignificant.
In the band of light on the right, about halfway down and barely noticeable, is a pale blue dot.
Here is how astronomer and author Carl Sagan described the photo, taken by the Voyager 1 of our planet shortly before the spacecraft left our solar system.
On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
This is our only pale blue dot floating in an infinite sea of space.
We can either take action to protect the environment or we can bury our heads as our actions create catastrophic changes to the climate. The consequences of inaction are very real and only going to get worse.
There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during the 21st century. Because changes have been gradual so far, and are projected to be similarly gradual in the future, the effects of global warming have the potential to be manageable for most nations. Recent research, however, suggests that there is a possibility that this gradual global warming could lead to a relatively abrupt slowing of the ocean's thermohaline conveyor, which could lead to harsher winter weather conditions, sharply reduced soil moisture, and more intense winds in certain regions that currently provide a significant fraction of the world's food production. With inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth's environment.
Since the release of that 2003 report, the indications are that the pace of climate change is accelerating.
This will have long-term, terrible consequences on our children and their children. Our short-sighted leaders, including Senators Joe Manchin and Jay Rockefeller, need to understand that inaction or even worse hindrance of those attempting to protect the environment is condemning future generations to a horrifying future.
There's a lot of snow piling up in West Virginia. The immediate cause is "Canadian high pressure ... plunging southward behind the storm that laid down the first significant snows of the season from Chicago to Cincinnati and Raleigh."
Now, it's really hard to point to any single weather event and say that it is related to global climate change. But, I'm reminded that just a few days ago DailyKos diarist FishOutofWater pointed out this exact possibility. Labrador Sea 9F Above Normal, Changing Global Weather.
Loss of Arctic sea ice is changing northern hemisphere ocean currents and atmospheric circulation patterns. A massive influx of warm water as much as 9° F above normal has flowed up the west coasts of both Greenland and Norway towards the Arctic ocean causing a new northern hemisphere weather pattern called the warm Arctic cold continents pattern to develop.
Warm water has flowed into the Arctic and the northern seas as Arctic sea ice volumes have collapsed, allowing for a faster Arctic currents. Those enhanced currents have flushed Arctic sea ice and Greenland glacial melt water down the east coast of Greenland and enhanced the flow of warm Atlantic ocean water up the west coasts of Greenland and northern Europe.
In pictures... a temperature anomaly like this:
Creates a "blocking high" that redirects that cold Canadian further south than otherwise:
The physics and chemisty behind the greenhouse effect is quite simple. We've known about it for well over 100 years (Joseph Fourier proposed it in 1824, Svante Arrhenius followed up with tests in 1896).
Certain types of chemicals, called "greenhouse gases" cause the absorption and emission of infrared radition in the atmosphere to warm the earth's lower atmosphere and surface.
As this diagram shows, greenhouse gas like water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3) in the atmosphere cause heat to be trapped and returned back to the earth's surface.
Image from Wikimedia
So, how do we know if global climate change is really happening?
Via Joe Romm, the Washington Post's Tom Toles not only gets it right on the climate debate but shows the perils of "compromise" with an irrational debate partner:
Click through for more from Toles on "super-snarky thoughts on the disinformation campaign and the sorry state of science literacy and education."
I worked on Capitol Hill for a long time, and I do not consider myself naive about the inner workings of Washington. But even I was surprised by two revelations this week exposing the amount of money the oil industry is spending to buy political influence.
The first eye-opener came from recently released lobbying numbers. The OpenSecrets blog reported that the oil and gas industry poured $174 million into the political system in 2009. That's eight times more than the green groups.
What did the oil and gas industry get for its money? A handful of Senators who blocked all attempts by the Senate to pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that would have made fossil fuel industries start cleaning up their global warming pollution.
This week's second revelation made that difference abundantly clear. Jane Mayer wrote an investigative piece in the New Yorker about the brothers David and Charles Koch who run Koch Industries -- the biggest corporation you've never heard of -- and who have spent more than $100 million on anti-government causes.
Koch Industries owns oil refineries and 4,000 miles of pipeline, and was named one of the top 10 air polluters in the nation in a 2010 UMass-Amherst report. The Kochs' political donations are often aimed at promoting their libertarian views, but they also directly benefit their own profit margins. They have donated millions of dollars to nonprofit groups that fight environmental regulation and seed doubt about climate science. In fact, a Greenpeace report called them a "kingpin of climate science denial." And though green groups tend to paint ExxonMobil as the worst of the worst when it comes to lobbying against climate legislation, Koch outspent even ExxonMobil.
One of David Koch's pet projects is the group Americans for Prosperity, a group he founded and funds but positions as a grassroots movement. An ad for one of its training sessions for Tea Party activists says, "The voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests. But you can do something about it."
But when Americans for Prosperity hosts at least 80 events protesting climate legislation, is it really acting in the interest of average Americans or the interest of oil industry donors?
When it funds an attack ad against Representative Betsey Markey from Colorado because she supported climate legislation last summer that would have brought 30,000 jobs to her state, who is it benefiting?
And when the group pledges to spend an additional $45 million before the midterm elections, is that money really coming from grassroots activists, or from deep corporate pockets? These fat cats pretend to fraternize with the ordinary folks who dangle tea bags from their tri-cornered hats, but, in fact, they are just using activists to put a populist face on their industry agenda.
Manipulating other people's fears about the economy when you are a billionaire -- I would call that the depth of cynicism. But considering those billionaires are getting in the way of climate solutions, clean energy and green jobs in America; I have to instead call it dangerous.
Today, a bunch of coal executives are congregating for the WestVirginia Coal Association annual meeting at the luxurious Greenbrier resort in White Sulphur Springs, WV. One of the primary things they will discuss is the formation of a 527 to take out candidates who may support a climate change bill. As Roger Nicholson of the International Coal Group alluded, the coal barons are psyched that they will FINALLY get their voices heard thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizen's United ruling that basically allows them to buy Congressional seats.
This kind of news just makes me sick - especially since these are the guys who have scarred WV's land and abused her people. We don't need to wonder what is driving some Senators to oppose popular legislation that would, in one fell swoop, create millions of jobs, strengthen U.S. national security, defund unsavory regimes and protect our environment from earth-scorching carbon pollution. Follow the money.
Clean energy and climate legislation didn't make it through the U.S. Senate this summer, despite the overwhelming scientific and economic evidence, and despite the fact that there almost certainly were more than 50 (aka, a "majority" of) Senators willing to vote for such legislation. First and foremost among those reasons, of course, was the near-unanimous opposition by Republicans to move ahead in this area. In addition, there were several Democrats, mostly from states with coal interests, who were probable "no" votes - and the money helps paint the picture about why.
As the Natural Resources Defense Council's Pete Altman points out, "Next time someone asks why climate legislation is so difficult to move forward, point them this way. Peabody Energy and Arch Coal are prime examples of how narrow special interests can operate in stealth mode to deny climate science and to put the brakes on climate legislation." How do Peabody and Arch buy influence in Washington, DC? Very simple - money. Lots and lots of money funneled into influencing policy and policymakers. For instance:
-- "In 2008 and 2009, Arch Coal ($3.04 million) and Peabody Coal ($14.2 million) spent a combined $17.9 million in direct federal lobbying on energy, environmental and other matters."
-- "The two companies contributed $5 million each to the budget of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity ("ACCCE") in 2008, and presumably have continued to keep their memberships current with contributions in 2009 and 2010."
According to Open Secrets, in 2010 alone Arch Coal has donated $39,500 to Democratic members of Congress and $88,000 to Republican members of Congress. For its part, Peabody Coal has contributed $53,400 to Democrats and $45,400 to Republicans.
I could go on all day about the money flowing to Congress from corporations and PACs with an interest in killing clean energy and climate legislation, but I'm sure you get the picture by now. Despite the overwhelming benefits this legislation would bring to the vast majority of Americans, as well as to the U.S. economy and our national security, a few wealthy companies, driven by nothing more than greed, have spent lavishly to make sure none of this happens. And so far, they've succeeded. The question is: will we let them continue to do so? Personally, my answer is no way!
Just when you thought the U.S. Senate couldn't do any less for clean energy and the environment than it's (not) done so far, we now face the real possibility of what would amount to a "stop-work order" on the 40-year-old, wildly successful (e.g., studies finding benefits outweighing costs at a 40:1 ratio), Clean Air Act.
That's right: believe it or not, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is moving ahead with a sequel to Sen. Lisa Murkowski's nefarious attempt, earlier this summer, to gut the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s power to protect the public health from dangerous pollutants, including harmful greenhouse gases. Just as bad, Rockefeller's proposal would keep America addicted to oil and other old, polluting energy technologies, while delaying or derailing our switch to a clean, prosperous energy economy.
Essentially, what Rockefeller is proposing would tell the EPA – at least for two years, although we know that justice delayed is often justice denied! - that it has to be asleep at the switch, that it must not hold polluters accountable, that it must look the other way whole Big Oil and Big Coal trash the environment. Is that the lesson the Senate learned from the Gulf of Mexico disaster? Really?
Fortunately, not everyone is so clueless as the U.S. Senate appears to be right now. For instance, in yesterday's Politico, two energy investors – one Democrat, one Republican – explained what's at stake in clear, compelling language.
We are not experts in vote counting or horse trading. But we do know how investors and markets will respond if Congress ultimately fails to put a market-based price on carbon. The response from capital will be brutal: Money will flow to places like China, Europe and India — and U.S. jobs will go with it.
The path to creating more U.S. jobs is simple: Pass legislation that eliminates uncertainty and levels the playing field, and investors will fund projects that create good jobs here at home. Rules bring certainty, certainty spurs investment, and investment creates jobs.
[...]
Take it from investors: Removing the uncertainty, and taking a more thoughtful approach to energy policy by putting a market price on carbon, can bring home new investments and jobs — and ensure that America leads the clean energy economy.
Instead, it now looks like the Senate not only won't be moving us forwards, but instead will be trying to move us significantly – and disastrously - backwards. What's truly stunning about this possibility is that, right now, the science of climate change is clearer and more disturbing than ever. Heat waves are getting worse, the ice caps are shrinking faster than ever, and scientists are telling us that the world is setting new temperature records almost every month, every year, and every decade. In addition, the results of our insatiable thirst for fossil fuels were demonstrated starkly and tragically, both in a West Virginia coal mine as well as in the Gulf of Mexico, on TV screens all across America in recent months. As if all this isn't bad enough, we also could run out of water.
The American people know this situation can't go on. In fact, recent polls show large majorities supporting an energy bill that would "[l]imit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy...by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like gas." In other words, this is a case where good policy – limiting greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing our national security, safeguarding public health, jumpstarting a clean energy revolution – and good politics – strong poll results for doing just that - appear to align. Yet, the U.S. Senate appears ready to ignore both good policy and good politics, and actually move to make matters worse by gutting the EPA and letting polluters like BP off the hook.
Don’t let them do it. Call your Senators right now and tell them "hell no" to the "Let Polluters Pollute with Impunity Act." Also, while you’re at it, call the White House and tell President Obama that, if such a measure reaches his desk, he will veto it – no ifs, ands, or buts.
Take action today for a cleaner, stronger, and more sustainable future. Join NRDC Action Fund on Facebook and Twitter and stay up-to-date on the latest environmental issues and actions you can take to help protect our planet.
The climate bill blame game has begun. When I first started writing this post about the so-called death of the climate bill, I literally pointed the finger at just about everyone, including myself. The anger poured out, and I was frank in my assessment as well as unforgiving in the motives behind this latest setback.
After I was done with my self-loathing tantrum, the kids ran in the door from camp and I was swept up in the lovely reality of my family's banter. It is summer, so the pace in our home is a bit more relaxed in the evening. We aren't quite as quick to rush through dinner, toss the kids in a bath, and then march them off to bed. Ice cream and extra cuddles are relished, and I am reminded each year at this time why I do this job.
Later, after progeny were tucked in, I went back to my draft blog post to spruce it up. I reread my rage, disappointment, and irrational ramblings and was embarrassed. And I asked myself "What good is all this blame going to do?"
At the end of the day, it is my kids - and your kids - who lose when we implode. If you think kids have a lot to say about their parents now on Dr. Phil, can you imagine what our children will say in 50 years should we fail to get our act together?
The country should be ready for this. The facts are on our side. As we witness the worst industry-caused environmental catastrophe in our history, the worst coal mining disaster in 40 years, and sweat through the hottest first 6 months of any year on record, it is clear that there's never been a more urgent time to move forward with a smart clean energy and climate plan.
Unfortunately, the politicians just aren't there. At every juncture during this debate, a minority, led by the Republican leadership and supported by a few impressionable (I might say pathetic) Democrats, has obstructed the opportunity to solve America's energy problems, preferring to leave the worst polluters and the big petro-dictators in control of our energy policy, while tax-payers are forced to pay for their messes.
Oopsy... there goes that blame again. Let's focus on what we can do next.
Hope is not lost. Of course, the closer we get to the midterm elections, the more challenging passing a bill becomes. Still, it's not impossible. In fact, the Senate has passed almost every single bedrock environmental law in the fall of an election year or in the "lame duck" session following an election. Here are just a few examples:
o Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) - 1996 Amendments: 8/6/96
o Food Quality Protection Act: 8/3/96
o Energy Policy Act of 1992: 10/24/92
o Clean Air Act of 1990: 11/15/90
o SDWA - 1986 Amendments: 6/19/86
o CERCLA (Superfund): House 9/23/80, Senate 11/24/80, POTUS 12/11/80
o Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA): 10/21/76
o Toxic Substances & Control Act (TSCA): 10/11/76
o SDWA: 12/16/74
o Clean Water Act: 10/18/72
o Establishment of the EPA: first proposed 7/9/70, established 12/2/70
o National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): 1/1/70
o The Wilderness Act: 9/3/64
As this list demonstrates, the Senate and the environmental movement are no strangers to passing major legislation right before - or just after - an election.
I don't want to overpromise success. This is an uphill battle. But if you and I show up to every town hall, rally, spaghetti dinner, and other rituals of election year and fight for our kids... fight for our country... fight for our America... we can turn the tide. Without that kind of passion, we will all lose. That's an outcome we must try hard to avoid, on behalf of people, communities, large and small businesses - oh, and our kids, sleeping peacefully or playing happily around the country.
In the meantime, we must also protect what we already have, like a plethora of state laws and the federal Clean Air Act. I recommend reading David Doniger's blog on Switchboard today that really outlines how we can make progress with the tools we have right now.
In coming weeks and months, we must continue to push forward for a strong, clean energy and climate bill, just like we have done countless times in the past. I am done with blame. History is on our side. Are you?
Take action today for a cleaner, stronger, and more sustainable future. Join NRDC Action Fund on Facebook and Twitter and stay up-to-date on the latest environmental issues and actions you can take to help protect our planet.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
