Scary, scary stuff

The Republican War on Science is one of the more evocative book titles in recent memory, but it seems like a bit an exaggeration. Sure the Bush Administration did not fund science research, or put a priority on addressing climate change – but the idea of a crusade against science seemed a bit extreme. But, perhaps it does have a bit of validity to it. Recently the Christian Science Monitor reported that the Chair of the Republican National Committee has denied that Global Warming is occurring.

Speaking on a nationally syndicated radio program, Michael Steele, whose official job title is Embattled Chairman of the Republican National Committee, placed himself in opposition to empirically observed reality earlier this month when he denied the existence of global warming.

Mr. Steele who was filling in for conservative pundit Bill Bennett on Mr. Bennett’s drive-time “Morning in America” call-in show on March 6, responded to a caller who mocked the concept of global warming. Here is Steele’s response, as transcribed by the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein:

“Thank you, thank you,” he said. “We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I am using my finger quotation marks here, is part of the cooling process. Greenland, which is now covered in ice, it was once called Greenland for a reason, right? Iceland, which is now green. Oh I love this. Like we know what this planet is all about. How long have we been here? How long? No[t] very long.”

Steele managed to pack many factual inaccuracies into this statement. The notion that the planet has entered a cooling phase is a common – but highly misleading – trope among climate change deniers, who often cite temperature readings that show that the hottest year on record was 1998, implying that the planet has been steadily cooling since then.

Those statements belie the ignorance that is currently gripping the Republican Party. That’s some scary stuff right there. For a long time I’ve tried to judge individual politicians on their own personal views and their voting record. But given that the voice of the Republican Party is denying the existence of Global Warming that gives me pause. How can I support any candidate from a party who’s views are so counter to scientific evidence, logic and reason? It makes me wonder for the future of the country.

Imagine a president who doesn’t trust scientists. What if a meteor was detected flying rapidly towards Earth? Does the president say, “wow I don’t see a meteor, I’m sure it’s okay.” What if scientists reported that flounder were going extinct and needed to be protected? Does the president say, “gee I saw flounder in the supermarket, I’m sure it’s fine.” The sort of disregard for scientific thought that Mr. Steele is portraying is terrifying and makes me pause at the thought of his reasoning towards the economy or foreign affairs. A person who cannot take the advice of world experts is not qualified to lead.

Election 2008: Metro Environmental Blog Endorsements

In case you missed it, we've spent the last few days discussing the presidential candiates' positions on environmental issues. We've talked about Funding Science Research, Alternative Energy, Non-Renwable Energy, and Climate Change. Today we make some endorsements for local and federal elections, based on the candidates environmental voting records and proposals.

State Senate:

Ken LaVelle (R) – District 1 (Eastern Suffolk).

Endorsed by New York Conservation League. Has a long term history of environmental stewardship.

John Flanagan (R) – District 2 (Northwestern Suffolk).

His opponent does not appear capable of handling the responsibilities of state senate. Senator Flanagan does not appear to take much interest in the environment, instead pursing other issues in Albany. We’d like to hear more from him on the environment but endorse him none the less.

Brian Foley (D) – District 3 (Southwestern Suffolk)

His opponent, 82 year old Cesar Trunzo is no longer an active legislature, having not spoken on the Senate floor in over 2 years. Brian Foley did a good job cleaning up corruption in Brookhaven Town, and will do a good job in Albany too.

Representatives:

Tim Bishop (D) - District 1 (Eastern Long Island)
Tim Biship has long been a friend to environmental causes and improving higher education. Comes endorsed by the New York League of Conservation Voters.

Jim Hall (D) - District 19 (Middle Hudson Valley, Northern Westchester)
Strong voting record on the environment, received a score of 100% from League of Conservation Voters.

Nita Lowey (D) - District 18 (Westchester County)
Strong voting record on the environment, received a score of 100% from League of Conservation Voters.

State Assembly:

Steve Engelbright (D) – District 4 (Stony Brook, Port Jefferson)
A member of the Geosciences faculty at Stony Brook University, he is one of the few science educated members of the Assembly. He comes highly endorsed for his deep seeded support of the environment and higher education. He is endorsed by the New York League of Conservation Voter.

Sandy Galef (D) – District 37 (Ossining, Yorktown)
Ms. Galef is a long time assemblywoman, and has a demonstrated long term record of supporting environmentally friendly legislation. She is endorsed by the New York League of Conservation Voter.

US President

I am endorsing and supporting Barack Obama for President of the United States of America, based on his proposed plan for energy and the environment.

I have long admired Senator John McCain, so much so in fact that I agreed to trade my vote in the Democratic Primary with the vote of a friend who was a Republican. I would pull the lever for Barack Obama for her, if she would vote for John McCain for me. So this election was, until a certain point, a relatively difficult decision for me.

Senator McCain, I believe will tackle greenhouse gas emissions comprehensively. I like his proposal to increase nuclear power, and his opposition to federal corn subsidies. I don’t quite understand his lukewarm support for wind and solar power, and wish he would commit to increasing funding for the hard sciences. I cringe at his desire to pursue offshore drilling, and find his overwhelming support for coal energy to be quite disappointing. Overall Senator McCain has a modest proposal to handle the environment, that is most likely acceptable to address the challenges we will face this century.

However, Senator Obama’s environmental policy is more than acceptable, it’s both exciting and visionary and will make the United States into a leader on environmental issues. Senator Obama receives high marks for his support for wind and solar energy, his willingness to increase funding of science research, and his support science education. I hope that he continues to qualify his support for coal and offshore drilling, and I pray that his support for corn subsidies wanes as he shifts his responsibilities to representing the people of Illinois to representing the people of America. Senator Obama could be the first president since Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter to truly advance environmental stewardship in the United States, and now more than ever that sort of leadership is needed.

While Senator Obama has a better plan, it was not so superior to Senator McCain to sway me in voting overall. But frankly, I lost my admiration for Senator McCain when he nominated Sarah Palin to be his vice president. Her environmental record as Governor of Alaska is frightening. She has routinely ignored science research, and instead has supported polices that agree with her ideology. She doesn’t believe that man has caused global warming, and will not take the decisive actions needed to curb our emissions. She has a history of being insensitive to biodiversity concerns, except when industry can be hurt by the results. Sarah Palin is not qualified to be vice-president of the United States, and should God forbid anything happen to Senator McCain, she would be an absolute disaster as a president.

So on Tuesday I will be voting for Barack Obama. Not so much as casting a vote for him, but rather casting a vote against Sarah Palin. Thanks for reading this series. Regular posting will continue on Wednesday.

Election 2008: Climate Change

Today we continue our look at the two presidential candidates' positions on environmental science issues. We’ve previously looked at the candidates’ positions on Funding Science Research, Alternative Energy, and non-Renewable Energy. Today we conclude our discussion with a look at how the candidates will tackle the looming challenge of climate change.

I’m ready to be done with this election. I’m tired of seeing attack ads on the sides of highways, hearing damning reports on the radio and having a steam of slanderous video beamed into my living room. I’m certainly tired of hearing about the latest polls from Pennsylvania, Nevada or North Carolina. And I’m definitely tired of writing these long winded research intensive posts that have seemingly generated very little interest.

Do the candidates believe that climate change is occurring?
Obama:

There can no longer be any doubt that human activities are influencing the global climate and we must react quickly and effectively.

McCain:

We know that greenhouse gas emissions, by retaining heat within the atmosphere, threaten disastrous changes in the climate. The same fossil-fuels that power our economic engine also produced greenhouse gases that retain heat and thus threaten to alter the global climate….The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington.

Okay great, glad we’re all on the same page here.

What actions will you take to address the situation?
McCain:

To dramatically reduce carbon emissions, I will institute a new cap-and-trade system…

Obama:

Specifically, I will implement a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions…

Alright, everyone’s on the same page, this is going to be a short post! Both McCain and Obama state that their cap and trade program will reduce US emissions to 1990’s levels by 2020, and then to a cut 60% (McCain) or 80% (Obama) on current emissions by 2050. In essence the same thing.

McCain in his answer proposes a few additional steps:
- Increasing the penalty for not meeting CAFÉ standards. CAFÉ standards set the gas mileage standards for passenger vehicles in the United States. Senator McCain does not however indicate a desire to increase standards, which Senator Obama proposes to do.
- Senator McCain proposes to create a research and development tax credit to those businesses producing greenhouse gas friendly products.
- Senator McCain proposes a $300 million dollar prize for the creation of a battery to power hybrid-electric vehicles.

The Devil is in the details…
So Senators McCain and Obama have similar perspectives on global warming, similar goals and share a mechanism by which to address it. Both propose a cap and trade, but each would go about implementing their cap and trade in different ways.

First, let’s shed a bit of light on what a cap and trade is. A regulating body, in the form of a government sets a limit (cap) on the total amount of pollutants to be allowed. The total amount of pollutants is divided into small increments, otherwise called “credits,” and are distributed to those doing the polluting. If a polluter produces more pollution than it has credits for, it must purchase additional credits from a polluter who has not used all of theirs. Thus trading industry is developed, with fiscal incentives for companies to reduce the amount of pollution produced. The total cap is often reduced incrementally, so as to over time slowly reduce the total amount of pollution a nation is producing.

This concept is not new to the United States. There is a cap and trade system in place for sulphur and nitrogen oxides, a gas most commonly produced from coal burning.

There are two major variables in a cap and trade: the initial allocation of credits and at what level the “cap” is set. The candidates are more or less in agreement of the cap, that is to say they have a specific goal to be at by 2020. But how the candidates would initially distribute the carbon credits is different. Senator Obama would auction off carbon credits, whereas Senator McCain would give allotments to companies based on current emissions.

Conclusion:
Both Senator Obama and Senator McCain are in agreement about climate change being the fault of mankind. Both Senators agree that US needs to take a leadership role. Senator McCain supports market based, Senator Obama supports federal regulations (mandates). Both would address the situation by implementing a cap and trade. There are slight differences in how the candidates would initially distribute their carbon credits. From what I read environmentalists tend to prefer Senator Obama’s cap and trade program, but both candidates get good marks from me for their desire to tackle climate change.

Another reference that might be interesting is grist.org’s candidates factsheets about the environment. Click here for Obama’s and here for McCain’s. Actually those factsheets cover pretty much everything we discussed over the past four posts but much more succinctly.

Oh well, next we’ll hear my endorsement for President, along with a few other races in the New York Metro Region.

Steward's Icebox...now without ice!

The figure on the right shows the yearly total area coverage of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean (y-axis), as a function of month of the year (x-axis). 2008 has had more sea ice coverage than in 2007, especially in the summer months, but is significantly below average. Image from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

There is absolutely nothing worse than getting into a black painted car with a black interior in the afternoon of a hot, sunny summer day. Just crack open the door and waves of heat strikes roll over you as the hot air escapes the vehicle. Black cars become hot because the sunlight striking the car is absorbed by the black paint. In contrast a silver or white car is cooler, because the sunlight striking the car is reflected away back towards the sky.

The same thing happens to the Earth’s air temperature. It’s really warm above dark objects that absorb sunlight and cooler above light objects that reflect that sunlight. And that is one of the many reasons why the ice covering the Arctic and Antartic regions is so vital, when sunlight strikes the ice, it is reflected back to space, cooling the Earth’s climate significantly.

This is why scientists are making such a fuss about the decrease in sea ice in the Artic Ocean. Sea ice acts as a reflective agent for the Earth moderating the climate. As the Earth warms in the next few years, the amount of ice will decrease as it melts, which in turn will further increase the temperature of the Earth as less sunlight is reflected and more is absorbed. Scientists refer to this as a “positive feedback” because an increase in one variable causes the system to respond by further increasing that variable.

This summer sea ice was found in greater abundance than was found in the summer of 2007. Summer is the point of the year that sea ice is at a minimum, and thus when the positive feedback is at its strongest. While having more sea ice this year is a good thing, it probably means very little in the long run, as the amount of ice found is still much less than what was observed for most of the 20th Century.

The annual summer retreat of the sea ice cloaking the Arctic Ocean appears to have ended with the ice not quite matching last year’s extraordinary recession, polar scientists said Tuesday.

Still, the scientists, at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., said that the ice in the Arctic this summer was 33 percent below the average extent tracked since satellites started monitoring the region in 1979 and that the trend continued toward an ice-free Arctic Ocean within a few decades.

As people who’ve been through a winter or two will tell you, some years are colder than others and Arctic climate is no different. This year, was a bit colder than last year, but the long term trend is robust. Sea ice is declining rapidly during the summer, and soon there will likely be no summer ice to speak of.

Dr. Meier said that small variations from one year to the next were less significant than the long-term trajectory, which remained toward progressively more open water. “It’s hard to see the summer ice coming back in any substantial way,” he said.

Decreases in sea ice have impacts beyond that of just climate. While some of our nation’s greatest politicians, who are obviously experts in the field of climate science may not agree with recent finding regarding the findings showing that Polar Bears and other Arctic species may struggle in an environment suddenly devoid of ice, scientists note that this is also a major concern:

Federal biologists have said that this long-term ice retreat is the main reason they had concluded that polar bears, which hunt seals from the ice, deserved protection under the Endangered Species Act. The Bush administration listed the species in May as threatened with extinction.

Global warming from the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases almost certainly contributes to the Arctic ice retreats, according to a host of Arctic specialists. But many say natural variations in Arctic winds and cloud cover probably had a role in shaping the particularly large ice losses in the past two summers.

It will be interesting to keep an eye on sea ice in the summer months during the next few years. Maybe we should put a pool together to pick the first year without any sea ice? It’d be like fantasy baseball, but fantasy climate. This could be a money winner…