Selling their souls

This is a Letter to the Editor of the Brunswick Post from April 2024.

Corruption is not confined to any particular political party or ideology. Certainly, anyone can take or make a bribe or otherwise use power to profit by illegal means. Yet in recent years, it does seem to happen more on the right than the left. Yes, on the one hand, you have a few Democrats like Jimmy Dimora, James Traficant, and Bob Menendez. But these guys are small potatoes compared with top-of-the-food-chain crooks like Donald Trump, Scott Pruitt, and Larry Householder. Now that the other shoe has dropped, add the name of Sam Randazzo to that latter group.

According to the Associated Press, Randazzo, former chair of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, who was awaiting trial on charges that he took millions in bribes in conjunction with the largest corruption scandal in Ohio's history died by suicide on Tuesday. He had faced the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison if convicted of the dozens of criminal charges. The most notable was the allegation that he accepted a $4.3 million bribe from Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp. in exchange for regulatory favors. The suicide is unfortunate for any friends or family, but also because he will now not face the consequences for his actions.

Remember House Bill 6? The scheme that resulted in all that bribery money going to Ohio lawmakers (including Householder) and regulators (like Randazzo)? The scheme that resulted in Ohio residents paying more than necessary to FirstEnergy in order to prop up decrepit nuclear and coal plants? We still don’t know who all of the crooks were, and the entire extent of their thievery. So far, however, they’ve all been Republicans. And so far, your Ohio Legislature still hasn’t removed all of the HB6 knots and tangles.

The thing is, Randazzo, Householder, and their ilk have, at least in my opinion, sold their souls. They used their positions of power and influence to try to make themselves richer. This was not just at the expense of Ohioans as taxpayers and utility customers. It was to the detriment of the environment. Can this kind of corruption happen on the other side, like in support of the environment? Republicans might say yes, but I don’t think so. When you’re a crook, or when you support crooks, it’s easy to believe that the other side is just as crooked. But it ain’t necessarily so.

Blissful Sciolism and Climate Change

I had to look up the word, ‘sciolism.’ I think it fits.

As someone who has believed in the “evidence” produced by climate science, I was shocked to learn that climate science deniers have a completely alternate set of facts and questions. Who would have thunk it?
The deniers say that the climate is always changing, so what’s the big deal? Dang. We dummies didn’t know that. (Actually, scientists do appear to understand that the climate is always changing, but add that the current changes are caused by human activity, mostly the burning of fossil fuels. But that’s only based on evidence.)

The deniers tell us that past atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have reached thousands of parts per million, so when the current levels spike at 417 ppm, it’s nothing. Didn’t know that either. Boy, are those propeller-heads stupid. And me too, for believing them. But just to clarify, the scientists do say that levels above 1,000 ppm last occurred 40 million years ago, and the planet has not seen levels as high as they are now for 800,000 years. One last thing that they say about this is that current and historic global temperatures correlate with these atmospheric CO2 levels. But why quibble when the facts are inconvenient?

The deniers wonder why climate models aren’t compared with actual data. Good question! The silly scientists just never thought of such a thing. Oh, except maybe for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). But I’m sure that doesn’t count.
There are other things the climate science deniers say about the climate hoax. Like solar activity isn’t taken into account. Wow. If only the scientists had thought of that. (Except that they did when they built it into the models.)

I guess I just need to listen to my inner flat-earther self more.  Thank you, climate change deniers, for showing us that critical thinking and scientific literacy are mere inconveniences in the pursuit of blissful sciolism. It's a tough job, but someone has to stand up against the overwhelming evidence and expert consensus. Keep fighting the good fight, and may your blind faith in misinformation continue to shine like a beacon of willful (i-word).

17.18C, and what it means

17.18 degrees Celsius (62.92F) is the warmest daily global temperature recorded since such records have been kept. It occurred Tuesday, July 4, 2023. The previous record (17.01) was set the prior day, and the most recent record before that was 16.92 set in August 2016. You may think that 63 degrees Fahrenheit doesn’t sound so hot. You would be wrong; consider that this is the average global temperature for the entire planet, including the coldest parts.

The highest annual temperature ever recorded occurred in 2020 when it tied 2016. Annual values consider the global values for the entire calendar year. Given the El Nino event that is currently underway, it is widely believed that 2023 and/or 2024 will surpass those previous records. The past eight years have been the warmest on record globally since records have been kept. The heat is fueled by ever-rising greenhouse gas concentrations and accumulated heat, according to six leading international temperature datasets consolidated by the World Meteorological Organization.

Even Climate Science’s most fervent deniers are now forced to admit that global warming is happening. Even so, some may question the time period. The climate is always changing, they posit, and the planet has been this hot at times in the past. Although true, this statement is misleading. Earth has not since we modern humans have been around.

Records have been kept for data such as that summarized here since around 1880. But accurate readings to measure the warmest daily global temperature have only been kept since 1979. How can we compare today’s temperatures to older data? This requires the use of indirect measurements and proxies, since systematic temperature records are only available for this relatively short period. Some of the methods used include the following:

- Historical documents, such as diaries, ship logs, and weather journals.
- Proxy Data: indirect evidence of past climate conditions that can be used to estimate temperature variations. Various natural proxies can provide information about past temperatures, such as tree rings, ice cores, corals, lake sediments, and stalagmites. These proxies contain climate-sensitive information that can be analyzed to reconstruct temperature patterns.
- Instrumental Data Overlap, where modern temperature records overlap with historical records or early instrumental measurements. These methods can help with calibration.
- Climate models (mathematical representations of the Earth's climate system).

By combining these methods, scientists can reconstruct past temperature patterns and make comparisons with present-day data. These comparisons provide insights into long-term climate trends and help understand how current temperature changes fit within the context of historical climate variations.

Therefore, when we state that the warmest days or the warmest years on record are occurring in recent decades, we can say with certainty that this can be verified over the past 140 years or so. But after examining all of the various measurement data, we can also say with reasonable confidence that the planet has not been this warm for well over 100,000 years. The last time the Earth experienced similar warmth was likely during the Eemian interglacial period, approximately 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. During that period, global temperatures were somewhat higher than today, and sea levels were higher as well.

To summarize the comparison of current temperatures to past temperatures, scientists have found that:

- The Earth is experiencing a period of rapid warming, and the last few decades have been among the warmest in thousands of years.
- The current rate of temperature increase is unprecedented in geological records, far exceeding natural variations that occurred over much longer timescales.
- The warming trend has been associated with more frequent and intense heatwaves, as well as changes in precipitation patterns and extreme weather events.
- The increase in global temperatures is attributed to human activities, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, into the atmosphere.

It's crucial to keep in mind that comparing the current rate of warming to historical geological periods is not an exact analogy, as human civilization has developed during a relatively stable and cooler period in Earth's history. The rapidity of the ongoing changes and their potential impacts on ecosystems and human societies make them of great concern and underscores the importance of addressing climate change and its causes.

Climate change is happening in a big way, and this is only the beginning. We have the power to prevent it from getting much worse. All it will take is the will to do so. We’ve no time to lose.

Balancing Wanderlust and Sustainability: Traveling with a Conscience

 Introduction:

I recently spoke to the Sierra Club Portage Trail Group about my efforts to visit all of the U.S. National Parks. I love to travel in general, but how can I reconcile this with my concern about the environment?

For those of us with a passion for exploration and a desire to experience the world's diverse cultures and breathtaking landscapes, it can be challenging to reconcile our love of travel with growing concerns about the environment, particularly climate change. As awareness of the planet's fragility increases, it becomes crucial to find ways to minimize our carbon footprint and travel in a more sustainable and responsible manner. Let us explore practical tips and strategies to help align one’s wanderlust with environmental consciousness.

Choose sustainable transportation:

One of the most significant contributors to carbon emissions is air travel. While it may be unrealistic to avoid flying altogether, consider opting for more sustainable alternatives when feasible. Embrace slower forms of travel like trains or buses for shorter distances, as they generally have lower emissions. For longer trips, consider carbon offset programs to compensate for the environmental impact of your flights. Carbon offsets are also discussed below.

Embrace eco-friendly accommodations:

Selecting environmentally responsible accommodations can make a significant difference in reducing your travel's carbon footprint. Look for hotels or lodges that prioritize energy efficiency, waste reduction, and sustainable practices. Additionally, consider eco-friendly alternatives such as eco-lodges, eco-villages, or homestays that promote local sustainability and contribute to the local economy.

Travel mindfully and responsibly:

Adopting a mindful and responsible approach to travel can greatly contribute to minimizing your environmental impact. Choose destinations that are actively engaged in sustainable practices and conservation efforts. Respect local cultures, traditions, and the environment by practicing responsible tourism, supporting local businesses, and avoiding activities that exploit wildlife or damage natural habitats.

Reduce, reuse, and recycle:

Carry eco-friendly essentials, such as reusable water bottles, cloth bags, and eco-friendly toiletries, to minimize waste generation during your travels. Be mindful of recycling opportunities and dispose of waste responsibly. Remember that the principle of "leave no trace" should extend beyond hiking and camping trips to every destination you visit.

Support local and sustainable initiatives:

Make an effort to support local communities and sustainable initiatives wherever you go. Choose locally-owned accommodations, restaurants, and shops to contribute to the local economy. Seek out tours and activities that promote cultural understanding, conservation, and community development. By supporting responsible businesses and initiatives, you can have a positive impact on the destinations you visit.

Offset your carbon footprint:

Recognizing that travel inevitably has an environmental impact, consider offsetting your carbon footprint. Carbon offset programs allow you to invest in projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as reforestation or renewable energy projects. By purchasing carbon offsets, you can neutralize the carbon emissions generated by your travel, effectively mitigating your environmental impact. Do your homework, however. While carbon offset schemes can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting sustainable projects, it is important to approach them with caution. Some offset projects have faced criticism or concerns regarding their legitimacy. By conducting due diligence, selecting reputable offset providers, and considering the potential concerns associated with carbon offset projects, individuals and organizations can make informed decisions to support legitimate and impactful initiatives aimed at addressing climate change.

Emphasize quality over quantity:

Instead of chasing an ever-growing list of destinations, focus on the quality of your travel experiences. Slow down, immerse yourself in the local culture, and spend more time exploring a single place. By reducing the number of trips and extending your stays, you can decrease your overall carbon emissions while gaining a deeper understanding of the destinations you visit.

Conclusion:

It is possible to pursue one’s love of travel while still being mindful of the environment and climate change. By adopting sustainable practices, making responsible choices, and supporting local communities, you can minimize your carbon footprint and leave a positive impact on the places you visit. Remember, the key lies in balance, mindful choices, and a genuine commitment to sustainability. Let your passion for travel coexist harmoniously with your concern for the planet, and embark on your journeys with an eco-friendly mindset. Together, we can explore and protect this beautiful world we call home. By being a witness to it, we can gain a greater appreciation for the importance of safeguarding our environment.

Ohio Senate Bill 83 controversial subjects

According to the Columbus Dispatch (‘Ohio's chilling new pro-ignorance bill,’ March 21), proposed Ohio Senate Bill 83 would be an attack on higher education in the state. “From prohibiting diversity, equity, and inclusion training for university employees and students, to prohibiting collective bargaining, Senate Bill 83 is an attempt to radically skew oversight of higher education, truncate the self-leadership of Ohio’s universities and colleges, and shortchange the university experience.”

Now, a new wrinkle has been added. According to the Ohio Capital Journal (‘Ohio higher-ed bill would require instructors to teach ‘both sides’ on climate change,’ March 27) “Ohio college and university instructors could be barred from teaching climate science without also including false or misleading counterpoints under the sprawling higher education bill.” That’s because climate science is considered by the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jerry Cirino, to be “controversial.” Public colleges and universities would need to guarantee that faculty and staff will “not seek to inculcate any social, political, or religious point of view.”

Yes, climate change certainly is controversial. And we can't have that inculcation going on! There are two sides to every story, so let’s consider the debate in question here. On one side, we have scientists from all over the world who have spent their entire lives studying climate systems, collecting data, and conducting experiments. They have concluded that climate change is real, it's caused by human activity, and it's already having devastating effects on our planet. On the other side, we have politicians, talk show hosts, and bloggers who think that climate change is a hoax because it fits their worldview and that of their fossil fuel donors. They ignore the mountains of evidence that support the scientific consensus and instead choose to believe in conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. But then, who needs evidence and logic when you can just stick your head in the sand and pretend that everything is fine? Who needs to listen to scientists when you can just listen to your favorite talk radio host who has never set foot in a university science classroom?

What other scientific subjects ought to be considered “controversial” by SB 83? Here are some suggestions.

The so-called ‘Spherical Earth Theory’ has two sides. On one side, we have the overwhelming scientific consensus that the earth is round, supported by centuries of evidence and experimentation. On the other side, we have a handful of conspiracy theorists who think that the earth is flat because they once saw a YouTube video that convinced them. Both points of view need to be taught so that students can form their own conclusions.

The Moon Landing Hoax that you knew would be coming. Some people believe that the United States government faked the Apollo moon landing in 1969. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they believe that the footage was staged and that the astronauts never actually set foot on the moon. Debate this!

Then there’s the Vaccination Debate. There is a small but vocal group of people who believe that vaccines are harmful and can cause autism, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. They often rely on anecdotal evidence and conspiracy theories to support their views, ignoring the overwhelming evidence that vaccines are safe and effective. Ignore for the moment that without public health, we’d still be in the Dark Ages. Ignore the fact that vaccines have saved millions, perhaps even billions of lives. There are two sides to the controversy, so both should be taught.

We shouldn’t be at all concerned about what our university students will be learning if SB 83 becomes law. We shouldn’t worry about our state colleges and universities falling (further) behind the rest of the world because they teach pseudo-science. Our Republican State Senators have Ohio’s best interests at heart.

Yes, we’re coming for your gas stove

This appeared as a Guest Column in the February 1, 2023 Brunswick Port.

Column Text A guy jumps out of an airplane whilst reading his instructions: Pull the yellow cord; if the parachute doesn’t open, pull the red cord. A truck will pick you up. He pulls the yellow cord and nothing happens. He pulls the red cord and nothing happens. He thinks, “I’ll bet the truck doesn’t show up, either.”

As he gets closer to the ground, he sees another man flying UP. He yells, “Do you know anything about  parachutes?” The other guy replies, “No. Do you know anything about gas stoves?”

Remember when we started the War on Christmas? Remember when we sent President Obama to your house to get your guns? Thanks to Fox News and its imitators (the Not-Main-Stream-Media, or NMSM), you are now also well aware of our plan to confiscate every gas stove in America. As the NMSM so wisely points out, we liberals are not just evil, we’re also not very smart.

Our evil is obvious. NMSM viewers know that we don’t truly care about the environment or Americans’ way of life. Our goal is simply to make everyone miserable. This starts with taking away things like guns and gas stoves. We won’t be satisfied until we’ve got them all.

Now, let’s talk about how dumb we libs really are. (Out of character side note: ‘Defund the Police’ truly was a dumb idea. It’s so dumb that NMSM didn’t even make it up like they made up the Mythical War on Christmas, Biden’s push to open our borders, and Obama coming for your guns. Okay, now back in character.)

If we only had a brain. If so, we’d consider modern efficient and convenient electric stoves in place of gas ones for new construction only. But no, we’re going to knock on everyone’s doors to confiscate them. We would understand that natural gas, also called methane, is a major cause of climate change. Yet, we’d be able to perceive and communicate the fact that the transition to truly green energy (not as defined by Mike DeWine and the Ohio Legislature), although necessary, is not going to happen overnight.

How, you may ask, can we possibly be so stupid? For example, we don’t know that although everyone will benefit from clean energy, less pollution, and fewer greenhouse gasses, the conversion needs to be done with great care. We’d be aware that despite what Mike DeWine tells you, methane is neither green nor clean. Saying that it’s green just because it’s cleaner than coal is like saying lead poisoning is good for you because it’s better than mercury poisoning.

If you accept Mike DeWine’s definition of green energy, if you believe what NMSM tells you about us coming for your gas stoves, then you are surely as smart as a fox (pun intended). Someday perhaps us libs could become as smart as you. Maybe it would help if we were ‘owned’ by some MAGA types.

Dan Horvath lives in Brunswick, where he's making room in his garage for several million gas stoves.

The COP27 Climate Summit and the Transition to a Green Economy

 

 “Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's troublesome.” This quote is attributed to Author Isaac Asimov. Transitions can indeed be pesky, especially in some areas. Let’s put it in terms of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change: “Fossil fuels are easy and cheap. A green economy based on renewable energy is clean. It’s the transition that’s troublesome.” Most reasonable people understand that our current use of fossil fuels is unsustainable and that a clean energy future is inevitable if civilization is to survive. The only difficult part is the transition.

It’s safe to say that many of us, even those who fully understand the scope of the problem, prefer a slower transition, while environmentalists strongly believe that the conversion must be done at an accelerated pace. It’s interesting that renewable energy is now at least as cheap as fossil fuels, and that capitalism will eventually take its course no matter what. But will it happen soon enough? The short answer is no.

The outlook for Planet Earth with regard to Climate Change is bleak. As predicted by climate models, the early results of the addition of tons of carbon dioxide and other chemicals to the atmosphere are devastating. The cost of climate disasters in terms of money and lives increases nearly every year. Considered over several years or decades, these costs are alarming. Don’t believe that this trend will reverse itself anytime soon. But is the situation hopeless? Not quite.

The United Nations Climate Summit known as COP27 has concluded. It ended with a last-minute, hard-fought deal to create a fund that will help poor countries being battered by climate disasters. But there was no agreement for a stronger commitment to the 1.5 C goal/cap set by the 2015 Paris Agreement. Thus, the results are both gratifying (that some help will be forthcoming where it’s needed) and discouraging. "It is more than frustrating to see overdue steps on mitigation and the phase-out of fossil energies being stonewalled by a number of large emitters and oil producers," according to one attendee.

Most now understand that the 1.5 C target will likely not be met. The vast majority of the countries attending this and other recent climate summits are falling short of their commitments. Despite this, we must acknowledge the progress that is nevertheless being made. We have already averted the worst-case scenarios that were so alarming before 2015. Before Paris, four degrees of warming was anticipated by the end of the century. This was considered to be 'cataclysmic.' Now it appears that, because of the Paris Accord and subsequent agreements, the planet is on track for just under three degrees, possibly even lower.

Meanwhile, renewable energy costs are plummeting. The free market will encourage further progress by taking advantage, and the trend will continue to accelerate. The U.S. passed the Inflation Reduction Act, its most significant action yet. And perhaps most hopeful of all (at least in the long run), the U.S. and China have restarted joint climate talks.

The transition to a greener world is still troublesome, but it’s also increasingly inevitable. The thing is, the sooner, the better.

Learning to live with climate change vs trying to fix it

The reduction of emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to prevent the planet from warming to more extreme temperatures is called climate change mitigation.

The sad fact about climate change is that the carbon dioxide that we’ve placed into the atmosphere will stay there for hundreds of years. Even if we stopped all such pollution immediately, we’d still be left with the damage we’ve already caused. And of course, stopping all greenhouse gas pollution right away isn’t at all possible anyway. Yet we can’t give up; we still have to try. Zero net emissions still has to be our long-term goal. Picture a bathtub filled with water so much that it’s beginning to overflow. The problem is that water is still being added to the tub, even though it’s already full. If we reduce the inflow, it will slow the amount that’s spilling onto the floor, but it won’t stop it. The only solution is to shut the water supply off completely. But if we don’t at least begin to reduce emissions now, the earth’s warming will be that much worse. As we slow and hopefully stop greenhouse gas emissions, we will also need to develop new technology to remove carbon from the atmosphere. There have been some promising developments on this front, but the breakthrough needs to be in the area of scalability.

Thus climate change is a long-term problem without an easy fix. It’s exacerbated by some people and institutions who are resistant to change, often citing economic justification. Avoidance of short-term pain is understandable, but much of the resistance is fostered and sponsored by those with a vested interest in the status quo: those who profit greatly from the burning of fossil fuel.

Climate change adaptation means altering our behavior, systems, and sometimes ways of life to protect our families, our economies, and the environment in which we live from the impacts of climate change.

Now that climate change is finally accepted as fact, and it’s sad that this has taken so long, we will have to adapt or perish. Every part of the globe will have to take measures to minimize the effects, and it will take time, effort, and money. Lots of money.

Alternative facts regarding the climate

Until she said it, I had been under the impression that we were all stuck in a world with one set of unambiguous truths. Many of us were none too happy with the situation, especially when said truth did not fit our worldview. But then Kellyanne Conway changed everything when she said that then-President Trump was entitled to his own set of ‘alternative facts.’ Suddenly, I felt free to enjoy believing anything I wanted. And evidently, Trump felt even more free to do anything he wanted, regardless of laws or conscience. Isn’t it wonderful to no longer have to worry about whether something is a truth or a falsehood? Once you have alternative facts, you can say or do anything!

Take global warming. Please. (See, I can even make jokes about it. Those darn bleeding-heart nature lovers can’t, can they?) The environmentalists believe in something called ‘climate science,’ which claims that greenhouse gas emissions from burning good-old fossil fuels are causing the earth’s temperatures to rise. The climate scientists say their position is based on both theory and observation of ‘facts.’ They say that even though some refinement is always needed, there is near consensus on the basic premise that the earth is getting warmer, and that human activity is the cause. I don’t like these facts, and I don’t think too many of my friends do, either. That’s why we have our own special alternative facts about global warming. Here are a few of my faves.

Alternative Fact 1: Sure the climate is changing. The climate is always changing. (Don’t I sound smart when I say that?) Wait. You’re telling me that a few years ago, I was denying that the climate was changing at all, and this is now my fallback position? I deny this, too. Scientists

also tell us that the planet is warmer now than at any time in human history due to our greenhouse gases. I don’t like this fact either, so I’ll be sure to come up with an alternative one. When I get around to it.

Alternative Fact 2: What do scientists know? Back in the ‘70s, they were telling us that an ice age was coming. (Don’t I sound smart when I say that?) What? Out of the climate-related studies from 1965 to 1979, 62% predicted that warming would occur and only 10% predicted cooling, but the media hyped the latter ones more. Time for some better alternative facts, like my original smarty-pants statement above. Besides, scientists are just plain dumb. That’s what happens when you learn, think, or study too much about something: your brain gets all fuzzy. I know better because I haven’t studied the subject as much as they have, and I therefore have a clear head about such things. I’ve even heard scientists themselves say that their work isn’t perfect and that the scientific method itself is self-correcting. Why don’t they just use alternative facts, so that they can never be wrong?

Alternative Fact 3: Even if those original scientific facts about anthropogenic climate change are true (I’m not admitting that they are, and by the way, look at that big word I used), what about India and China? They pollute more than we do, and what good will it do for us to clean up our environment if they don’t? (Don’t I sound smart when I say that? And isn’t this the best whataboutism of all?) I know.

Former President Obama, and now current President Biden, want the U.S. to lead the world in clean energy, saying it will help, not hurt the economy in the long run. I don’t

like this fact, either, because it doesn’t suit the people who make a lot of money off coal and oil. Therefore, it doesn’t suit the Republican Party, former President Trump, or smart people like me. Our alternative fact to this one is that renewable energy will cause massive unemployment and disrupt our great economy. And don’t even get me started on cow farts.

The current spate of record high temperatures, heat waves, flooding, severe storms, rising seas, and wildfires are mere inconveniences. I’m sure they will all stop now. And alternative facts about such things just keep getting better.

Anyway. I could go on. The alternative facts coming from my side won’t stop, no matter what true facts you care to share. 

Dan Horvath is a proud member of the Flat Earth Society, which has members from all around the globe.

The Administrative State vs Pollution

There was a time when our air, at least in areas, was so polluted that it was nearly impossible to breathe. Our rivers and lakes were poisoned to the point of being devoid of life and even catching fire. President Richard Nixon and Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 to regulate industry such that the environment was protected. The EPA’s charter has been upheld by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions. The Supreme Court has even upheld the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change. Such protection is crucial to our ability to control such pollution.

Now, the activist and highly political Supreme Court has reversed itself once again. Its decision on West Virginia v. EPA limits the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court sided with the fossil fuel industry to strip the EPA of the power to do its job: protecting our people and the environment from the growing climate crisis. By limiting the EPA’s authority to regulate pollution from the energy sector (the sector is responsible for over a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions), the Supreme Court is putting our environment, our climate, and our health in increasing danger.

The court’s conservative majority explains their activism by referring to the EPA as the “Administrative State.” Okay, yes, their job, as defined by Congress, is to regulate polluters. The term is accurate, even if it is used in a pejorative way. More important are the words of Justice Elena Kagan: “Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions.” Kagan also called out the court for designating itself as the rule-maker for such policies. “The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

Polluters can now join the Religious Right and the Gun Lobby; their bought and paid for Supreme Court is doing their bidding now as well. The “Administrative State” has kept our air and water relatively clean, and it has helped us fight the pollution that causes climate change. Until now.

The Supreme Court makes another political decision to side with polluters

Today, June 30, The Supreme Court, voting 6 to 3 along ideological lines, curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from power plants. Today’s decision on West Virginia v. EPA limits the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court sided with the fossil fuel industry to strip the EPA of the power to do its job: protecting our people and the environment from the growing climate crisis.

By limiting the EPA’s authority to regulate pollution from the energy sector (the sector is responsible for over a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions), the Supreme Court is putting our environment, our climate, and our health in increasing danger.

 
Justice Elena Kagan delivered a critical dissent to the court’s majority opinion in the case. In the decision, the court took away the president’s authority to implement regulations under the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon emissions at power plants. The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts. Kagan, joined by fellow justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, called the court’s decision “all the more troubling” given the subject matter.

“Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” Kagan wrote. “And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions.”

Kagan also called out the court for designating itself as the rule-maker for such policies. “The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent.”

 
It’s clear that we cannot continue to rely on an anti-regulatory Supreme Court that is in the pockets of industry to protect our families and our climate. We must become more radical and take action to work around and avoid such terrible decisions by this out-of-control court.

Short Term Pain vs Long Term Gain

It’s not surprising that so many want to mitigate the rising fuel costs by increasing fossil fuel production. No one enjoys paying increasingly high prices for fuel. But the war in Ukraine is also an opportunity. It’s a chance to double-down our commitment to reduce dirty fossil fuel use in favor of clean, renewable energy.

President Biden’s March 8 speech proved that he understands the pain we’re going through. I encourage everyone to watch it. Thankfully, we have a President who fully understands world events and how to respond by building coalitions. He is garnering support among our allies, and even our own opposition party. During the speech, he noted that the United States produces more fuel than it did during the first year of his predecessor. This was necessary to counter some of the lies and conspiracy theories put forth by the right-wing media. Most importantly, however, he understands that we can’t let up on renewables.

The conversion to sustainable energy will occur regardless of whether we want it to or not. The only question, of course, is the timing. If we invest now, we can guide the transition so that it will be less disruptive to our economy as well as the best solution for the climate. We can also help ensure our leadership in the global technological economy.

Some short term policies may help. A little. No matter what we do, it will be best for us to keep our eyes on the long term gain.

The Cost of Climate Change

Much to the delight of Republicans, the Democrats’ Build Back Better agenda appears to be foundering. The $1.7 trillion bill was to include $555 billion to combat climate change. This framework would set the United States on course to meet its climate targets, achieving a 50-52% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2030. Although there were efforts to pay for the majority of the bill’s costs through various means, dissenters cite high cost as their primary reason for their opposition.

A half-trillion dollars to fight climate change? It sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? Compared with the entire annual U.S. budget of $6.8 trillion, it is. But BBB was to be spread over ten years, so it averages out to closer to $55 billion annually. And remember, most of that would be paid for, so relatively little would be added to the annual deficit. Even so, it’s all still a pretty good chunk of change.

When we regard such costs, however, we need to also consider the price of the alternative: to do nothing. What will climate change cost the U.S. and the global economy if all the warnings and concerns are ignored? These costs include more frequent and expensive weather disasters such as droughts, wildfires. Floods, hurricanes, and off-season tornadoes. Add to this the cost of increased disease, migration, and famine, and decreased crop yields. Most of these things are happening already, but the continuing disruption and impact to our economy are only at their earliest stages.

What would it add up to? According to an analysis by global insurance company Swiss Re, if countries succeed at holding average global temperature increases to less than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels as set by the 2015 Paris accord, the planet’s economic losses by 2050 would be no more than 5 percent smaller than would otherwise be the case. In today’s dollars, 5% of the current  U.S. GDP of $22 trillion is about $1.1 trillion.

What if we are not able to hold the average global temperature to less than two degrees? Most countries are well behind their Paris emissions targets, so this is a real possibility. Current projections are for the actual increase to be more like 2.6 degrees by 2050. Swiss Re considered this (and an even worse) scenario as well. The impact to the United States (and the world) would be closer to 7 percent of GDP, or $1.54 trillion. Comparing this figure and the 2-degree one, we can estimate that a half-trillion-dollar investment now could save us that much every single year by mid-century.

Like any long-term investment, the best time to begin was years ago. Stating that the United States has been substantially under-invested in climate action for decades, Rutgers University’s Robert Kopp says, “The longer we wait, the more damages we'll have to deal with, and the more costly it will be to lower our emissions in a way that avoids future damages.” Also like any long-term investment, it’s still better to begin late (like now) than never.

The current and future cost of climate change is more than just a monetary hit to the economy. Now we get to the most tragic aspect of a climate disaster. The cost of human lives and livelihoods lost and disrupted will be incalculable. It’s the same for the loss of global biodiversity; we’re creating a planet that none of us will recognize in our near future.

What will it take to mitigate the worst aspects of the coming climate disaster? The will to do what is right. And for that, we can start with investing in our planet’s future through Build Back Better.

Nuclear Power Needs to be Part of the Solution

For over 35 years, scientists have been telling us that our greenhouse gas emissions would cause climate change and that would lead to a climate crisis. Welcome to where we’re at now: the very start of a climate catastrophe that will only get worse. Had we listened and taken heed then, our present difficulties would be greatly reduced, and it would be much easier to further mitigate the problem. Perhaps we should listen to these scientists when they tell us that we now have to take even more drastic action to prevent complete disaster in years to come.

The fact is, we have to get to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The burning of fossil fuels is the primary concern. Of course, it isn’t going to happen overnight, but zero needs to be the goal. We can get a great deal of the way with renewables. Wind and solar energy sources are clean and proven and must be further pursued. But these alone won’t get us all the way to zero. Fission-based nuclear energy (our current technology) has improved significantly; it’s now much safer, more efficient, and there is far less waste. It has the potential to take us the rest of the way.

In a Washington Post article, Jonah Goldberg argues that nuclear power must be part of any fight to take climate change seriously. Although Mr. Goldberg is wrong to criticize climate activists and politicians and their “periodic climate confabs that this is our ‘last chance’ to act or to save the planet” (they’re trying to save the world for our grandchildren, so cut them some slack), he is right to say that nuclear power needs to be a major part of the solution.

Nuclear power is safe, cheap, and carbon-free. It doesn’t cause any pollution in the usual sense. But like any source of energy, it’s not without problems. One is that no one wants them in their backyards, and partly as a result, they’re expensive and time-consuming to build. Another is that the source materials and fuel must be mined, and that’s a dirty, polluting business. Finally, there’s the problem of what to do with the waste.

Thanks to new technology, the waste from nuclear power is greatly reduced. But there’s still some; where do you put it? Mr. Goldberg is critical of President Obama for shutting the “perfectly safe” Yucca Mountain waste repository. That safety is debatable, but the current situation - nuclear waste is stored at more than 100 sites around the country – isn’t better. Other alternatives, such as recycling and other forms of storage, must be considered more seriously.

Regardless, there just aren’t any other solutions to climate change that will currently work for us. Think of it this way: nuclear power: it’s not just for Homer Simpson anymore.

Yes, it IS an existential threat

In the August 12 Post Featured Guest Column, Washington Post writer George F. Will argues that “With a closer look, certainty about the ‘existential’ climate threat melts away.” Mr. Will bases his article almost entirely on the opinions of physicist Steven E. Koonin. Interestingly, Marc A. Thiessen (also of the Washington Post) wrote a nearly identical article that relied heavily on Mr. Koonin inon May 17. Both Mr. Will and Mr. Thiessen have also written articles supporting climate science denial in the past. Koonin is the latest darling of climate science deniers, appearing on Fox News and other right-wing news outlets with scholarly-sounding arguments to support their point of view.

Koonin’s assertions, like those of other science deniers, have been widely debunked. It would be nice if Mr. Will and Mr. Thiessen had taken notice. Unfortunately, confirmation bias exists even for those articulate enough to write for the Washington Post. It would be even nicer if they were correct - that there is nothing to worry about with regards to climate change. Unfortunately, they are not.

No, humans are not "almost" totally to blame

 

“Are humans almost totally to blame for global warming?” This is the question posed by our local newspaper, the Post. The real answer is no, humans are not "almost" totally to blame, they are totally to blame, without qualification.

There is no debate. There's no question. Science has told us about this for forty years, and (confronted with reality) we're only now beginning to believe it. Too bad for humanity and the planet that it's taken so long. The debate needs to be about what we do about it.

Unfortunately, this is only the beginning. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report makes it clear that the consequences of our folly are and will continue to be dire. All we can do to mitigate the problem is to take action now to drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, with the ultimate goal of getting them down to net zero.

Some say that this isn't possible, or that we can't afford it. These folks were wrong before (about whether it's happening and whether humans are the cause), and they're wrong now. It is possible, and although it will cost us, we can afford it. We can't afford not to.

What is the planet worth?

Confirmation bias versus the truth

You are entitled to your own set of facts, but not your own opinions... Or was that the other way around?

It’s difficult to tell what the real (versus alternative) facts are these days, given the amount of misinformation and disinformation available through social media. You often have to dig deeper to get to the truth. You may not want to do further research, however, if you are easily presented with misinformation that supports your views.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek, favor, and interpret information in a way that confirms or supports a person’s personal beliefs. It’s a tendency that comes naturally to us. Education and training in critical thinking skills can help us resist the inclination.

Science relies much on education and training in critical thinking skills. It also relies on peer review and publication as guardrails to support, as much as possible, its quest to get closer to the truth. If science says something like climate change, and humanity’s role in it, is a fact, then you can bet that there is evidence to support it. If new peer-reviewed information comes along to dispute what was previously accepted, then our understanding may need to be altered. In regards to the science of climate change, this has not happened. Although our understanding is continuously being refined, no evidence has been brought to light to dispute that it’s occurring and that human activity is responsible. In fact, the opposite is the case.

When someone comes along to disagree with the science, the questions we should ask are: what credibility do they have, what evidence do they present, and have they published a peer-reviewed scientific paper or article on the subject? There is no shortage of people, some appearing to be quite rational, who wish to “debate” the facts of climate change. Such disinformation is often given credence from certain media outlets. But there is no debate about such facts any more than there is one about whether the earth is flat.

We may not want to believe that climate change is happening, or that we humans are responsible, so we may still wish to favor information to support this view. But such confirmation bias doesn’t help us understand the facts. Or to get closer to the truth.

How much land?

How much land would be needed to generate 50% of our energy needs from renewables such as solar and wind? An April 21, 2021 article by David Merrill in Bloomberg News provides some useful information. I learned that in order to fulfill President Biden's vision of an emission-free grid by 2035, the U.S. needs to increase its carbon-free capacity by at least 150%. Expanding solar and wind by 10% annually until 2030 would require the amount of land equal to the state of South Dakota. By 2050, when Biden wants the entire economy to be carbon-free, the U.S. would need up to four additional South Dakotas to develop enough clean power to run all the electric vehicles, factories, and more. 

Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? It's not quite so bad, though, because some solar can be installed on rooftops, and some wind farms can be built offshore. Also, nuclear and hydroelectric power can be added to the mix.

According to Forbes, renewables are already less expensive than fossil fuels. And dirty fossil fuels continue to enjoy some of the subsidies that they've received for the past 100 years. While it's true that renewable energy is only part of what needs to be a global solution, we have to get to zero emissions. Our future depends on it.

Another LTE - The Spherical Earth Hoax

Note - this is in response to the Brunswick Post's reader poll question.

Those “scientists” are at it again. They told us that the “pandemic” was bad and that we should be vaccinated. We all know what a hoax that was. And the whole climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions is another big one. But the biggest hoax of all is that the earth is round.

Any thinking person with a reasonable amount of common sense knows that it is flat. Yet the supposedly learned men and women have been saying for years that us flat-earthers are ones who are wrong. Here’s the thing: we true believers can’t even get any traction on the news. So many times, we’ve tried to arrange debates with scientists about the true nature of the earth’s flatness. We’ve tried to start by saying, “You say the earth is spherical, and we say it’s flat. Let’s debate.” But they don’t even seem to want to bother with us.

Okay, let me get a little more serious now. This was in response to today’s Post Reader Poll, ‘Do you believe that climate change is real and caused by carbon buildup?’ Why are we even debating such a thing? We no longer debate whether the earth is round, whether a virus caused the pandemic, or whether electricity exists because those things, like climate change, are scientifically proven.

The debate ought not to be whether it’s happening. That’s a given. It needs to be about what we should do about it. 

James Baker’s column got it mostly right. It’s a global problem, and the United States can’t solve it alone. But we can and should provide leadership to the rest of the world in order to resolve it. And of course, Republicans must get on board and engage on the issue. By establishing markets and incentives, our climate leadership can also be a boon to our economy.

Fallback Position

 Okay, so maybe the climate is changing. Yes, it’s incredibly hot in some places at some times, but certainly not all. Yes, I suppose I have to admit that sea levels are rising, but what’s the big deal if you live away from the coast? Yes, firestorms and tropical storms are becoming more severe, but for a good part of the country, they’re of no consequence.

Now, even though I’m finally forced to admit that global warming is happening, I still have a fallback position! Want to hear it? The climate is always changing! This is just a blip that’s probably caused by the earth coming closer to the sun or something like that. Even the “experts” can’t seem to tie a specific weather event to human caused climate change.

These “scientists” claim that this climate change stuff is caused by the carbon monoxide and methane that we’re putting into the atmosphere and the resulting greenhouse effect. Even if that’s true, and even if these things are contributing to the warming (now I’m coming to my second fallback position), the climate scientists cannot tell us how much. They can’t give an exact percentage! They say, it’s as if you place a pot of water on the stove and turn on the burner, causing it to boil. How much of the boiling is caused by the fire beneath the pot?

Well, I’m not convinced. Now excuse me while I work on my third fallback position.