New York City’s mayor, an independent who believes climate change contributed to Hurricane Sandy, said he believed President Obama was the best candidate to tackle the issue.
Sandy Aftermath Affects Millions in New York and New Jersey (by PBSNewsHour)
Romney & Obama: A Sharp Contrast on Climate (by LCV2008)
“This isn’t about “lesser evils;” it’s about accomplishing the greatest amount of good we can, starting with minimizing the amount of unnecessary death in the world. The fact that we can’t save every life doesn’t mean we shouldn’t save some.”
The apparent low point for 2012 was reached Sunday, when sea ice covered 24 percent of the surface of the Arctic Ocean, down from the previous low of 29 percent set in 2007.
One might argue that there are many uncertainties here, and we should wait until the uncertainties are resolved. Yes, there are many uncertainties. That does not imply that action should be delayed. Indeed, my experience in studying this subject for many years is that we have discovered more puzzles and greater uncertainties as researchers dig deeper into the field. There are continuing major questions about the future of the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; the thawing of vast deposits of frozen methane; changes in the circulation patterns of the North Atlantic; the potential for runaway warming; and the impacts of ocean carbonization and acidification. Moreover, our economic models have great difficulties incorporating these major geophysical changes and their impacts in a reliable manner. Policies implemented today serve as a hedge against unsuspected future dangers that suddenly emerge to threaten our economies or environment. So, if anything, the uncertainties would point to a more rather than less forceful policy—and one starting sooner rather than later—to slow climate change.
‘Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coalsupplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.
If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground.’
Personal Commentary: James Hansen is awesome. I was happy to find out that President Obama delayed the Keystone XL pipeline decision until 2013, but it could still be approved … The division / distinction between the two main political parties in the United States is clearly illustrated in the effort by Republican politicians to force the Obama administration to approve this ill-advised pipeline without even a rudimentary assessment of its environmental impacts. And the argument that there is no practical / pragmatic difference between the two parties is difficult to defend if one gives even a cursory examination of the actions of the leadership of both dominant political parties in relation to the Keystone XL pipeline.
People Everywhere Connect the Dots on Climate Change (by 350org)
Another day, another mainstream conservative Senator knocked off by the pollutocrat-backed Tea Party.
This time it was 6-term Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, crushed in a GOP primary 60% to 40% by state Treasurer Richard Mourdock.
Mourdoch, needless to say, is a hard-core science denier who last month actually demanded that Lugar resign as an “honorary vice chair” of the Alliance to Save Energy, a bipartisan alliance of businesses and nonprofits that promotes … gasp … saving energy. The Alliance’s crime? They backed the 2009 Waxman-Markey climate bill because it aggressively promoted energy efficiency (see, for instance, “Waxman-Markey could save $3,900 per household and create 650,000 jobs by 2030“).
An honest question about climate change and politics …
I was wondering why seemingly intelligent and free-thinking people actually claim that while climate change / global warming is real and happening now, humans are not necessarily to be primarily blamed for this warming / change in climate? I understand that the global ecosystem is massively complex and a healthy dose of skepticism is essential for any truly scientific perspective of the universe, but I would hope that by this point in our history we could all accept that anthropogenic climate change / global warming is happening now and will continue to happen as long as humans continue to produce incredible amounts of greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels and continue the trend of deforestation which interferes with the natural systems of mitigation and adaptation that would otherwise alleviate the full brunt of our releasing of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere thereby increasing the greenhouse effect and further global warming / climate change. I guess this is an open question because there are probably several right answers, but I still feel that there is a certain level of self-deception going on among people who would rather believe the minority of scientists who question the prominence of human involvement in global warming / climate change instead of the clear majority of scientists and national / international academies of scientists who have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are the primary cause of climate change / global warming.
Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate. - From the Joint Statement on Climate Change - National Science Academies
Cost of Climate Change (by SenatorSanders)
