Tag: The Climate Reality Project

Categories
Environment

The Cost of Carbon – 24 Hours of Reality

the-climate-reality-project-logoOn Oct. 22 and 23, The Climate Reality Project will connect the dots between carbon pollution and climate change with the global live-streamed broadcast “24 Hours of Reality: The Cost of Carbon.” here’s the link:

http://www.24hoursofreality.org.

In Iowa, men and women in the agricultural community are talking about the likelihood of four or five more years of continued drought. Harry Hillaker, Iowa state climatologist, indicated 2013 was the wettest spring on record. He confirmed this summer’s drought conditions in Iowa. Like this year, the prospect for coming years is wet springs combined with long summer periods of little or no precipitation.  There is no doubt human activity is contributing to this extreme weather, and that carbon pollution is the driving force behind it.

Not only are extreme weather events happening in Iowa, they are happening throughout the world. Extreme weather has a tangible cost in dollars, and in its impact on human society. 24 Hours of Reality will bring a global perspective to the climate crisis.

There are a lot of reasons to participate in 24 Hours of Reality, and here are three topics of interest in the program:

Chances are, you’re exposed to the cost of carbon pollution in ways you may not even realize— and the bill just keeps getting more expensive. 24 Hours of Reality will provide a tool to calculate the cost of carbon to individual communities.

Climate change can lead to rising food prices in wealthy nations, but in some regions, the consequences can be much more severe, threatening basic food security and leading to political instability in Somalia.

One of the greatest costs of climate change is what it means for our health. The broadcast goes to towns across Australia to witness the consequences of carbon pollution in terms of fire and flooding, and address what such changes mean for the health of ordinary people there and the world over.

24 Hours of Reality will address two key issues: protecting what we hold dear from the effects of climate change, and doing something to address the causes of our carbon pollution. Click here for a link to the 30 second trailer about 24 Hours of Reality.

I hope you will consider viewing part of 24 Hours of Reality on Oct. 22 and 23.

Categories
Environment

Climate Reality Presentation Sept. 30

the-climate-reality-project-logoPlease join

Senator Rob Hogg and

Paul Deaton

for a presentation and discussion about climate change and what we can do about it.

Monday, Sept. 30 at 6:30 p.m. at the Solon Public Library, 320 W. Main St., Solon Iowa.

The link between climate change and more frequent and intense weather events is no longer in doubt. Climate Change is real, it’s happening now, and we can and should do something about it. This hour-long event will present the science of climate change, discuss its causes and effects, and lay out ways to address the causes of climate change and prepare for it.

Iowa State Senator Rob Hogg is a fourth generation Iowan who represents the 33rd Senate District in the Iowa legislature. He is the author of the new book, “America’s Climate Century: What Climate Change Means for America in the 21st Century and What Americans Can Do about It.”

Paul Deaton is a native Iowan and Solon area resident since 1993. He is a member of the Climate Reality Leadership Corps, part of a global initiative with more than 5,000 leaders trained personally by former vice-president Al Gore.

Categories
Environment Kitchen Garden

Letter to the Solon Economist

To the editor,

National Farm Bureau’s spokesman Mace Thornton was recently quoted by David Biello in Slate Magazine, “we’re not convinced that the climate change we’re seeing is anthropogenic in origin. We don’t think the science is there to show that in a convincing way.”

That a large national organization with strong Iowa roots would assert such a thing is ridiculous.

First of all, farmers experience the effects of changing climate directly. If they do not connect the dots between the increasing use of fossil fuels and the warming planet, it is the talk of bureaucrats and paid analysis not grounded in the science of the greenhouse effect and its relationship to climate.

Secondly, whether farmers are convinced that climate change is anthropogenic (i.e. caused in part by human activity), has become increasingly irrelevant. The USDA has already begun to incorporate climate change in its projections and outreach. According to Biello, “many American farmers— even those who would question whether climate change is man-made— are already doing exactly what efforts to combat climate change would require: precision agriculture to cut back on fossil fuel use, low or no-till farming, cover crops, biodigesters for animal waste, and the like.”

Climate change is real, and it’s happening now. If you would like to hear more about the science of climate change and what you can do to help remediate its causes, please attend a public meeting with me and Senator Rob Hogg on Monday, Sept. 30 at 6:30 p.m. at the Solon Public Library. All are welcome.

Footnote: Slate Magazine, July 16, 2013, Why Don’t Farmers Believe in Climate Change? by David Biello. Link to article here.

Categories
Environment

Hitting the Sweet Spot

View from the Pepper Patch
View from the Pepper Patch

LAKE MACBRIDE— Yesterday’s presentation to a group of university students went well. In 30 minutes and 70 slides, a story of the climate crisis and its relationship to food systems unfolded in what felt like my most confident public speaking to date. The students seemed engaged in the narrative, and the questions at the end were thoughtful. Perhaps I have found my sweet spot.

One of the hopes for On Our Own: Sustainability in a Turbulent World has been to work through ideas and practices in local food systems. This included real world experience working on four farms, maintaining a large garden at home, and networking with people who play various roles in our local food system. The question has been, can one more person make a living producing, selling and promoting local food? The answer is yes, but I enjoy writing and speaking about it more, leaving a quandary regarding how to go forward.

My work with the Climate Reality Project requires a certain amount of public speaking and writing, but it is volunteer work. Local food system work, like any paid labor requires full attention and is physically challenging, leaving little room for other things. Balancing the two, and resolving the quandary, may be possible, but the path is not clear yet. That’s good news for readers of this blog as I reflect on this year’s local food system experience and work through how to spend next year during the coming weeks.

Categories
Environment Kitchen Garden

Climate Changed Locally

Seedlings
Seedlings

RURAL CEDAR TOWNSHIP— A co-worker was asked when the last rain fell. The answer was July. In a community supported agriculture project, there is no option other than to irrigate when drought comes, and that means a series of hydrants spread throughout the farm, and frequent draws on the underground reservoirs. So far, there has been enough water.

In the list of 2014 legislative priorities recently sent to our state representative, I wrote the following paragraph,

Once again Iowa was short on rainfall, especially the last 6-8 weeks. If the dry weather and drought continues, there will be pressure to irrigate row crops in a place where traditionally we have had enough rainfall to do without. In late July, I traveled to Chicago and along Interstate 88 they are already irrigating corn. Water use will be a key issue for Iowa going forward, and if irrigation of Iowa corn and beans starts, I’m not sure how management would be structured, but more attention to water use would be needed. The legislature should play a role, in evaluating the science, and taking appropriate preventive action. Evaluating the science doesn’t mean just calling the folks at Farm Bureau, asking for an opinionaire from their members.

That there is a connection between human activity, climate change and the current drought can be a matter of some discussion in Iowa. For the most part, industrial agricultural producers see the climate changing, but do not attribute it to anthropogenic origins. It is just another thing to deal with while farming. Those of us more familiar with the science of climate change see the direct connection. The two positions haven’t yet been reconciled.

June 2013 was the 340th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. 2012 was the 36th consecutive year with a global temperature above the 20th century average. On a local level, here in Cedar Township, this translates into wanting rain and wondering what would happen if the well runs dry. The answer to that question, is farmers may give up, especially small scale local producers like the one where I work.

There is a connection between the global climate crisis and extreme weather events like this year’s drought. As global CO2 levels have increased above 400 parts per million, global temperatures rose in tandem. As temperatures increase, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor. This makes rainfall and flooding more frequent and intense like spring 2013 was in our area.

The effect of global warming, and the hydrological cycle’s absorption of water vapor, also creates longer intervals between rainfalls, making droughts even worse. Because of the atmosphere’s increased capacity for hold water vapor, the land can become parched without irrigation.

People who live from the land, have to do something, and in Iowa we have relied upon abundant rainfall to grow crops without irrigation. As climate changes, that means considering how to make the land productive absent the conditions that led us to be what we are. It requires us to to adapt to the changing climate, and take action to mitigate the causes of this year’s flooding and drought. Before we begin large scale irrigation, Iowa should consider the consequences of increased water usage.

Locally, the climate changed, when we least needed or expected it. There is little to do now, other than adapt and mitigate the human causes of climate change.

Categories
Environment

Al Gore’s Optimism

Al Gore in Chicago
Al Gore in Chicago

Wednesday, the Washington Post published an Ezra Klein interview with former vice president Al Gore, titled, “Al Gore explains why he’s optimistic about stopping global warming.”

Gore finds there is reason to be optimistic that public sentiment is changing regarding the rapidly increasing amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere and the fingerprints of man-made pollution found in severe weather occurring around the world. While climate deniers get upset, even outraged when people mention this fact, Gore believes it is possible to win the conversation on climate change. What does he mean by that? He explained,

I think the most important part of it is winning the conversation. I remember as a boy when the conversation on civil rights was won in the South. I remember a time when one of my friends made a racist joke and another said, hey man, we don’t go for that anymore. The same thing happened on apartheid. The same thing happened on the nuclear arms race with the freeze movement. The same thing happened in an earlier era with abolition. A few months ago, I saw an article about two gay men standing in line for pizza and some homophobe made an ugly comment about them holding hands and everyone else in line told them to shut up. We’re winning that conversation.

Winning the conversation on climate change means making it socially unacceptable to deny the science of man-made global warming pollution. According to Gore, “the conversation on global warming has been stalled because a shrinking group of denialists fly into a rage when it’s mentioned.” Focus on the word shrinking.

“… in spite of the continued released of 90 million tons of global warming pollution every day into the atmosphere, as if it’s an open sewer, we are now seeing the approach of a global political tipping point.”

According to Gore, it has already begun among politicians, including conservatives, who have grown weary of politicization of the science of global warming by climate deniers.

Another reason for optimism is the sharp and unexpectedly steep decrease in prices for electricity produced from wind and solar, providing a financially viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Some people really dislike Gore and what he represents. The film “An Inconvenient Truth” prompted some of this reaction,

The single most common criticism from skeptics when the film came out focused on the animation showing ocean water flowing into the World Trade Center memorial site. Skeptics called that demagogic and absurd and irresponsible. It happened last October 29th, years ahead of schedule, and the impact of that and many, many other similar events here and around the world has really begun to create a profound shift.

The truth about the man-made contribution to climate change is out. As it is understood, Al Gore’s optimism is expected to be vindicated.

Read the entire Ezra Klein interview with Al Gore on the Washington Post site here.

~ Written for Blog for Iowa

Categories
Environment

Iowa and Climate Change

Cedar Rapids Flood
Cedar Rapids Flood

What will climate change mean for Iowans? That climate change exists and is happening now is accepted by any Iowan who employs a rational thought process and considers scientific evidence. As the crazy talk from Ames last weekend indicated, not all Iowans are included in such a group.

That climate change is happening is also acknowledged by our government. In 2007, Iowa Code established the Climate Change Advisory Council, which produced a panel of reports about climate change and on how the state could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The council was disbanded on July 1, 2011, shortly after the election that brought Terry Branstad back into Terrace Hill.

For now, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) maintains a web page that lists climate changes Iowa is already experiencing, and it is worth noting what our government says about the effects of climate change happening now in Iowa. They include:

More Precipitation

  • Increased frequency of precipitation extremes that lead to flooding.
  • Increase of eight percent more precipitation from 1873 to 2008.
  • A larger increase in precipitation in eastern Iowa than in western Iowa.

Higher Temperatures

  • Long-term winter temperatures have increased six times more than summer temperatures.
  • Nighttime temperatures have increased more than daytime temperatures since 1970.
  • Iowa’s humidity has risen substantially, especially in summer, which now has 13 percent more atmospheric moisture than 35 years ago as indicated by a 3 – 5 degree F rise in dew-point temperature. This fuels convective thunderstorms that provide more summer precipitation.

Agricultural Challenges

  • Climate extremes, not averages, have the greater impact on crop and livestock productivity.
  • Increased soil erosion and water runoff.
  • Increased challenges associated with manure applications.
  • Favorable conditions for survival and spread of many unwanted pests and pathogens.

Habitat Changes

  • Plants are leafing out and flowering sooner.
  • Birds are arriving earlier in the spring.
  • Particular animals are now being sighted farther north than in the past.

Public Health Effects

  • Increases in heart and lung programs from increasing air pollutants of ozone and fine particles enhanced by higher temperatures.
  • Increases in infectious diseases transmitted by insects that require a warmer, wetter climate.
  • An increase prevalence of asthma and allergies.

Whether the DNR will continue to maintain this web site is an open question. The influence of agribusiness over Iowa’s government is no secret. Emblematic was the public clash between Iowa board of regents chair Bruce Rastetter, a Branstad campaign contributor and agribusiness leader, and Jerry Schnoor, a University of Iowa professor and former chair of the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council. It is easy to predict that there will be pressure from agribusiness interests to minimize the importance of climate change. As Blog for Iowa reported, the Farm Bureau idea “they think it’s (climate change) always been happening and therefore is unlikely to have much to do with whatever us humans get up to down at ground level,” is ridiculous.

What Iowans can expect is increased politicization of the science of climate change, especially as President Obama’s plan for climate action is implemented.

There is overwhelming evidence that climate change is anthropogenic. Scientists don’t know where the tipping point lies, but the effects of climate change on humans are getting worse, and we can do something about it without changing our way of life or hurting our economy. We should do something about it before it’s too late.

~ This is part of a series of summer posts on climate change written for Blog for Iowa.

Categories
Environment

Doubt and Climate Change

Cedar Rapids Flood
Cedar Rapids Flood

Public discussions about climate change are closely connected with sales.

Anyone who has taken professional sales training knows creating doubt about a competitor is a key tool used to gain favorable consideration from prospective clients. If there is a legitimate way to point out flaws in a competitor’s product and create a value proposition for a customer, a sale can be made.

A cottage industry has grown up around creating doubt about the reality of climate change, with money flowing from the hydrocarbon business community to fund politicized scientific thought. Unfortunately, it has proven to be effective as was noted in Tuesday’s post.

Most professionals know that in sales, the truth will out and the consequences for future sales depend on a faithful representation of the value proposition. During my recent time with former vice president Al Gore, he displayed an acute awareness of the need to use language in a way to convey truth and not hyperbole. If a salesperson makes false statements about competitors to make sales, or misrepresents the value of his own product during the sales process, the prospective customer will eventually discover the deceit and reject the purchase, and future sales.

Brooke Alexander
Brooke Alexander

The hydrocarbon industry has been very effective in creating doubt about the science of climate change, putting the best face on a dirty source of energy. Most T.V. viewers are familiar with the American Petroleum Institute’s Energy Tomorrow campaign featuring former beauty queen, soap opera star and spokesmodel Brooke Alexander. The value proposition has varied over the years but recently has been safe extraction of natural gas through hydraulic fracturing, jobs, energy security and tax revenues to build infrastructure and fund public employees like teachers, fire fighters and law enforcement officers. It all sounds pretty good until we consider the fact that burning fossil fuels adds tens of millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere like it was an open sewer every day. This directly contributes to global warming and a changing climate, putting infrastructure, jobs and energy security at risk. Ms. Alexander doesn’t mention that in the ads.

One business group that has no doubt about the climate crisis is the re-insurance industry, companies who insure catastrophic loss. Check out why Munich Re and Swiss Re support reduction of CO2 emissions in the New York Times article, “For Insurers, No Doubt on Climate Change.”

To learn how the hydrocarbon industry borrowed from the tobacco industry’s 1960s sales campaigns to create doubt about the fact that tobacco use causes cancer, to create doubt about climate change, view the five-minute, 12 second video below. While those of us fighting for climate action believe the truth will out, we also hope it will be told and understood before it’s too late.

~ This is part of a series of summer posts on climate change written for Blog for Iowa.

Categories
Environment

A Case for Climate Action

Cedar Rapids Flood
Cedar Rapids Flood

Four former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, William D. Ruckelshaus, from its founding in 1970 until 1973, and again from 1983 until 1985; Lee M. Thomas, from 1985 until 1989; William K. Reilly, from 1989 until 1993; and Christine Todd Whitman, from 2001 until 2003, have called for the United States to move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally. They are all Republicans.

They wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times, which can be read here. The crux of the letter pertinent to our series of posts on climate change is the following:

“There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.

The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes ‘locked in.'”

On June 25, 2013, President Obama spoke about climate change at Georgetown University. He said, “as a President, as a father, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act.” The president matched his words with a plan for climate action.

On Aug. 11, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wrote, “unfortunately, too many elected officials in Washington still talk about climate change as if it doesn’t exist. They falsely claim scientists are still debating whether carbon pollution is warming the planet. It’s time for us all— whether we’re leaders in Washington, members of the media, scientists, academics, environmentalists or utility industry executives— to stop acting like those who deny this crisis exists have a valid point of view. They don’t.”

People like Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma have begun to line up to fight against President Obama’s agenda on climate change, complaining that the president’s staff created a list of political talking points to support his plan. Lucky for us, Inhofe is using as his moral authority a survey of weathercasters. What do weathercasters, people who read weathercasts on the radio or television, know about the science of climate change? Inhofe obfuscated the difference between weathercasters in the survey and meteorologists, not to mention climate scientists, to make his point. This seems typical of climate change deniers.

From my experience of advocating for the New Start Treaty in the U.S. Senate during 2010, something is beginning to happen regarding climate action in Washington. Politicians, Republican and Democratic, don’t make statements like these unless there is.

While I was in Chicago on Aug. 1, the Climate Reality Project announced a partnership with Organizing for Action to support the president’s climate action plan. Inhofe was right about one thing, the forces for good are lining up to get something done about climate change.

“Something is happening but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mister Jones?” Well maybe you should, as all the signs are present.

~ This is part of a series of summer posts on climate change written for Blog for Iowa.

Categories
Environment

Global Warming is not a Liberal Hoax

Cedar Rapids Flood
Cedar Rapids Flood

Global warming is settled science, but one wouldn’t know if from conversations heard in Iowa. Blog for Iowa reported on Congressman Dave Loebsack, who wrote, “as Iowans, the threat of flooding never seems far away, and it’s only getting worse… flooding is costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year for preparation and recovery. The prediction and prevention tools from a National Flood Center would help prevent damage and allow our communities to better allocate resources such as sand bags, machinery, volunteers, and temporary flood walls. Every year flooding costs taxpayers, and the new technologies and methods already being put to use in Iowa could save our country untold millions.”

Loebsack was giving Iowans half a loaf. He did not mention the cause of the worsening weather events, saying Iowans should adapt to a climate that produces more frequent and stronger flooding, without mentioning the fact that mitigating the causes of global warming, which strengthens extreme weather events like Iowa’s recent flooding, is equally important.

This is not surprising for a politician. Inculcated in our culture is the erroneous idea that global warming is a liberal hoax, and to get elected in Iowa’s second congressional district, the liberal moniker is more liability than asset. Global warming is not a hoax. The idea that it is has been the direct result of a conscious effort on the part of American businesses with an interest in perpetuating our carbon culture for short term profits.

Noam Chomsky, linguist and political critic, said, “the chamber of commerce… the American Petroleum industry and other business lobbies have publicly proclaimed, in fact with enthusiasm, that they are carrying out a campaign to try to convince the population that global warming is a liberal hoax… and it’s succeeded unfortunately. The latest polls I have seen show that maybe a third of the population believes in anthropogenic global warming.”

It is easy to say Iowa should do something to reduce the cost of increasing and more devastating floods in the state and a National Flood Center, as Loebsack proposes, may help. What would help more is doing something about the causes of these floods, and that falls to what is a politically unmentionable, reducing CO2 emissions drastically and immediately through the assignment of a price on carbon.

Below is a link to the Noam Chomsky YouTube video where he discusses global warming. The part from the beginning up to the 5:43 mark is most relevant.

~ This is part of a series of summer posts on climate change written for Blog for Iowa.