J.C. Moore Online
Current Events from a Science Perspective

Posts Tagged ‘Environment’

Environmental Security and Renewable Energy

Thu ,18/05/2017

Below are two letters published in the Wichita Eagle recently. They remind us that there are many reasons for taking action on climate change. They are reprinted  with the authors’ permissions.

 

Grow economy with wind energy

 As a 30-year-old living in the middle of Wichita, I am constantly thinking about job growth and how to keep my friends from moving away to states with job opportunities more in line with their needs. I am in love with this state because of its natural beauty – prairie grasses, limestone and sunsets that I can enjoy nearly every day.
The more I learn about renewable energy, the more excited I become for what it could do for our state. At a legislative roundtable in 2013 discussing the benefits of Kansas wind energy, they said that more than 13,000 jobs could be created from construction and operation of wind turbines. The American Wind Energy Association reports as of late 2016 that Kansas has 4.4 gigawatts of wind capacity.
What if we utilized our energy capabilities right here instead of purchasing coal from other states? Let’s grow our economy and start thinking of alternatives that would withstand our extreme realities of droughts and floods, employ citizens, and allow Kansas to become more energy independent.
Alisha Gridley, Wichita

Environmental security matters

Let’s talk about security – the state of being absent of danger or fear. The types of security are many: home, health, food, financial, cyber, national, etc.What may not come so readily to mind is environmental security — which is to live in an environment that provides clean air and water and a predictable and livable climate.
Inaction on climate change poses a threat to our environmental security. Climate scientists are convinced, based upon a vast body of evidence, that human-caused climate change is happening. Unabated, climate change will result in an increase of extreme weather-related disasters and coastal flooding that will consume an escalating percentage of our gross domestic product, putting our economic and national security at risk.
The U.S. House’s Bipartisan Climate Caucus recognizes this risk. This group, split evenly with Democrats and Republicans, promotes legislation that would collect a fee on fossil fuel production and distribute all the collections equally among the American citizenry as a dividend. This offers a market-based approach to deal with climate change and achieve environmental security.
RICHARD COWLISHAW, WINFIELD
 
Note: Both authors are members of the Citizens’ Climate Education and the  Citizens’ Climate Lobby  groups in Wichita. They are both strong advocates for a carbon fee and dividend system to ensure clean air, pure water, and a healthy future for our children.

Westar Energy’s Proposal to Increase Rates on Solar Customers

Tue ,16/05/2017

Westar Energy is proposing a rate increase for customers who install solar panels or other distributive energy sources. Those Net Energy Metering (NEM) customers would have to choose between an additional $50 a month energy charge, or a $15 fixed fee plus a per-kilowatt rate demand charge based on the previous month’s maximum usage. If approved, Westar’s rate proposal will increase the payback time for installing solar panels from 12 years to more than 20 years, greatly discouraging solar installations.

As a Westar stockholder, I am opposed to additional fees or higher charges on Net Energy Metering customers. The NEM customers should be seen as a resource rather than a liability and should be encouraged. They should be treated just as any other customer when they draw energy from the grid, and just as any other supplier for the net energy they produce. Does it really matter if Westar buys energy from NEM customers or from the Southwest power pool?

Westar’s website  says it will “support public policies and initiatives to accelerate the development and use of environmentally beneficial and cost effective strategies for energy efficiency programs for both customers and Westar’s own operations, zero – or low – emissions generation technologies, and renewable energy resources.”  That is a good policy, but this proposal is inconsistent with it.

One of the biggest future costs to Westar would be to build additional power plants, so Westar encourages energy conservation.  If I cut my electricity usage by 50% by installing more insulation and storm windows, I am applauded for following Westar’s conservation guidelines. If I cut my electricity usage by 50% by installing solar panels, I would be charged a higher electric rate. That is irrational, as NEM customers would help reduce the need for new power plants just as energy conservation does.

Westar should not be concerned about losing revenue from solar customers. Residential customers pay a customer fee, an electricity fee, a fuel charge, a distribution fee, an environmental fee, an energy efficiency charge, and even Westar’s property taxes. Last June, our bill was $24.95 for electricity, but our total bill came out to be $53.27 after the fees were added. NEM customers will pay less for energy charges, but will still pay the other fees. If Westar makes it too expensive, then potential NEM customers may install extra battery  capacity such as a Powerwall, and withdraw from the grid entirely.

Distributive generation should be seen as a resource. Westar has been proactive in developing wind and solar energy and now gets 51% of its energy from noncarbon sources. In the future, Westar will need to replace some of its coal power plants and may need to reduce its use of natural gas to cut its greenhouse gas emissions. Distributed generation would help replace the energy they produce without requiring capital investment from Westar.

NEM customers will help reduce pollution and environmental degradation. Westar has three coal-fired power plants which operate without scrubbers. Those plants should be phased out immediately and Westar should begin phasing out its other coal-fired power plants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Though natural gas is cheap now, that may not be true in the future. There is a link between fracking and earthquakes, and fracking activities are being curtailed. This will lead to higher gas prices. Though natural gas produces 2 ½ times as much energy per mole of carbon dioxide produced, it has a global warming potential 82 times that of carbon dioxide. If even 4% of the natural gas used for energy is leaked during production and transportation, then any advantage of using it for fuel will be lost

Coal-fired power plants release mercury, chromium, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide,  particulates, and radioactive isotopes. Burning  coal releases millions of tons of pollutants into the air and leaves several hundred million tons behind in the coal ash. Some pollutants stay in the air and others eventually find their way into the water, the food chain, and into us. The heavy metals are carcinogenic and accumulate in tissue. Even exposure below the allowed levels increases the chance of cancer over time. The sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide released by coal combustion harm plants, produce acid rain, and increase the greenhouse gas concentrations. Switching to renewable energy would greatly reduce these pollutants and help preserve the environment for future generations.

Encouraging NEM will benefit Westar and its customers.  A study by Crossborder Energy in 2014 found NEM allows utilities to avoid costs of generation and fuel, maintenance and upgrade of transmission and distribution infrastructure, transmission losses (which account for 7% of losses), capacity purchases, and compliance with renewable energy standards. The study concluded,” The cost which utilities avoid when they accept NEM power exported to their grid shows that NEM does not produce a cost to nonparticipating ratepayers; instead it creates a small net benefit on average across the residential markets.” While it does cause power companies to have to adjust their loads accordingly, NEM reduces peak loads, transmission losses, and the need for new power plants.  In California, the study found NEM “delivers more than $92 million in annual benefits to non-solar customers”.

Similar research studies in Vermont, New York, California, Texas, and Nevada also concluded that net metering provided a net positive benefit for utility companies and their customers. A 2015 study done in Missouri is relevant to Kansas. A cost-benefit study of net metering in Missouri arrived at the same conclusion as the other studies, “ Net metering provides a net benefit. “ Missouri has 6000 net metering customers while Westar now has approximately 300. Westar certainly should encourage more.

This proposal to impose a fee or higher rates on NEM customers is the result of short-term thinking. It will harm Westar and its stakeholders in the long run. Investing in clean energy protects the environment, reduces deaths and disease from air pollution, and creates good, local jobs. Westar  must develop policies to encourage the development of renewable energy investments and energy conservation. Our energy needs will best be served by a mixture of traditional and alternate energy sources, but we must be proactive in developing our renewable energy resources as quickly as possible.

 

(c) 2017 – J.C Moore

We Should Not Weaken the EPA

Sat ,06/05/2017

 

Opponents of the EPA are now seeking comments on regulations that need to be eliminated by the EPA. They are, of course, focusing on the regulations that save businesses money by allowing them to pollute the environment. Please submit a comment at the link above asking that  no steps be taken to weaken the EPA.

It is our birthright that we and future Americans have clean air, pure water, and a livable Earth. The EPA has done a great job in limiting pollution to our environment and to remove the regulations that protect us would be a grave mistake.
Though many would like to see the EPA stop limiting carbon emissions, there is well-documented scientific evidence, supported by 97+ percent of climate scientists who are members of the American Geophysical Union, that carbon emissions are making undesirable changes in the Earth and its eco systems. The U.S. is second only to China in emissions but emits six times as much CO2 on a per capita basis. If the U.S. is not willing to reduce its emissions, why should other countries?

If anything, the EPA should strengthen the Clean Power Plan and reduce the amount of coal burned. Coal contains small amounts of mercury, chromium, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur, particulates, and radioactive isotopes. Man burns 6 billion tons of coal each year, releasing millions of tons of pollutants into the air and leaving several hundred million tons behind in the coal ash. Some pollutants eventually find their way into the water, the food chain, and into us. For comparison, mercury is 100 times as toxic as cyanide, arsenic is 20 times as toxic, and chromium(VI) is 4 times as toxic. These three are also are carcinogenic and accumulate in tissue. Even exposure below the allowed levels increases the chance of cancer over time. The sulfur and nitrogen oxides released by coal combustion harm plants and produce acid rain.

Polls show that the public does not support weakening the Clean Power Plan. The EPA’s plan may lead to increased electricity costs in the short term, but will lead to lower electric rates in the future. Coal and transportation prices are certain to increase in the future while the cost of renewable energy is falling. It costs upfront to build wind turbines and solar installations but, once they are in place, they are expected to function for 30 years or longer without any need for fuel.The EPA projects the Clean Power Plan’s proposed guidelines for particulates alone could prevent up to 3,600 deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed work and school days per year. As a result, for every dollar Americans spend on the Clean Power Plan, we will gain up to $4 worth of health benefits. So in terms of future energy costs, environmental benefits, and health benefits, the EPA Clean Power Plan is good policy for our citizens.

You may submit a comment up until May 15 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190-0042.

(C)  2017 J.C. Moore

Green Energy Is Not a Frivolous “Add on”

Mon ,03/04/2017

Article Photo
Dr. Pirotte’s clinic with solar panels

This is a reprint of a letter to the Wichita Eagle from Dr. Patrick Pirotte, which explains why renewable energy is important for our future.

Dr. Patrick Pirotte, O.D., is a board certified Fellow in the College of Optometrists in Vision Development and treats children with vision and learning-related vision problems. He lectures nationwide on the diagnosis and treatment of vision problems in children and on the impact of vision problems on learning and classroom performance. He is a member of the Citizens Climate Lobby and is an advocate for their carbon fee and dividend system to ensure a healthy future for our children.

The letter below is reprinted with his permission:

“I read with interest recent statements by Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., about renewable energy in Kansas (Oct. 1 Eagle). To imply that the only thing that green energy is doing in Kansas or elsewhere is a frivolous “add on” is incorrect.

Currently installed wind and solar are eliminating hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide while providing reliable energy at competitive prices. The idea that fossil fuel plants must be constantly kept running to back up intermittent sources such as solar or wind is not true.

When President Obama’s Clean Power Plan is allowed to go into effect, there will be a dramatic reduction in respiratory and cardiovascular diseases nationally and internationally. Proponents of burning fossil fuels should recognize these benefits and champion clean energy, saving lives and lowering health care costs.

Furthermore, the price of fossil fuels is not the just cost of fossil fuels, but also the external costs to the environment and people’s health. Because of that, there is a constant error in the way carbon pricing is discussed.

Senator Moran and his colleagues should consider a practical and well-studied proposal to charge a fee on carbon and give a dividend to each household, protecting those who would be harmed by the increased cost of their energy beyond their ability to pay. It is not a tax. Most importantly, it uses the market to send price signals to consumers to move their purchases away from fossil fuels, which will reduce climate change harm from burning them.”

PAT PIROTTE, WICHITA

 

Note: Dr. Pirotte is not only an advocate for renewable energy, but serves as an example of what can be done. He has installed 40 kW of solar panels on his 9000 square foot clinic as pictured above . They have a battery storage system and supply 90% of the energy needed to run the clinic. It is connected by a net metering system to the grid and on sunny days, particularly if the clinic is closed, his installation sends a considerable amount of electricity back onto the grid. He estimates the solar panels save him $6200 per year on his electricity costs and have a payback time of 14 years at current rates. His clinic serves as an example of how businesses can save money and energy by installing solar panels.

(C) 2017 J.C. Moore

Winners of the 2016 Hall Of Fame and Hall of Shame Awards

Wed ,01/03/2017

  Thanks  to those of you who submitted nominations and who voted.  The four top candidates in each category were selected from the nominees and the poll was  conducted on three internet sites and Facebook. This year’s winners won by landslides.

Here are the winners:

Hall of Fame 

1. Dr. Katharine Hayhoe ( 91% of the vote) –  an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, she is director of the Climate Science Center. She is an evangelical Christian who believes that science and religion do not have to conflict with one another. She has been a persuasive spokesperson for action on global warming and supports a  Carbon Fee and Dividend proposal to address the issue.

Award: An appreciation of climate science by conservatives.

2. The Standing Rock Sioux (5%) – for opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline to protect their water quality after it was routed through their reservation due to concerns of other communities for the same reason. Facing militarized police forces and North Dakota’s most severe blizzards and sub zero winds they prevailed in efforts on the reservation and in the media capturing the support of much of the nation.

Suggested Award: A proper, nonpolitical environmental review before any more construction.

3. President Barack Obama (2%) – for coordinating and implementing a global climate pact signed by 195 countries, including the US, even in the face of a Congress that would stop at nothing to prevent it.  President Obama managed to tie the US Paris agreement to a previous treaty to avoid a possible defeat in Congress.

Prize : Clean air and water for our grandchildren as his legacy.

4China (2%) –for announcing an investment of $361 billion in renewable energy by 2020 (and probably taking the global lead in green tech – a sad, missed opportunity for the US, but a great achievement for our shared future). China has also just cancelled the construction of 100 coal fired power plants to be replaced with wind and solar energy.

Award : Being able to go outdoors in the cities without a mask.

 

Hall of Shame 

 

 1. The  Palm Oil industry (91% of the vote.) –  Palm Oil is found in roughly half the packaged products sold in US grocery stores, creating a skyrocketing demand for the oil. This demand has led to the burning of millions of acres of tropical rain forests and jungles, caused the loss of wildlife and eco-system, contributed to climate change, and spread corruption to local and national governments. It is also responsible for human rights violations as corporations often forcefully remove Indigenous Peoples from their lands and its production has led to child labor violations and modern day slavery.

Suggested Award : A boycott of all conflict palm oil products.

2. Trump voters (5%) – for electing a President more than willing to undo even the modest progress the Paris Agreement would/could have accomplished – and most certainly will work to enable completion of the Keystone Pipeline, and push the Dakota Access pipeline in which he seems to have a financial interest. He has promised to remove/rollback decades of regulations designed to improve the quality of our air, water, and soil.

Suggested Award: May you drink water approved by Scott Pruitt’s EPA.

3. Governor Scott Walker  of Wisconsin (2%) – for appointing a real estate lady to head the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), scattering the DNR programs among five agencies making conservation more costly and less effective, halting enforcement of environmental regulations, and scrubbing anything  involving Climate Change from DNR computers.

Wished for Award: A resounding defeat in the next election.

4. Utah Congressman Rob Bishop (2%)  –  chairman of the powerful House Committee on Natural Resources, with sway over issues ranging from energy production to mining, fisheries, and wildlife across one-fifth of the nation’s landmass. He wants to overturn Obama’s Bear’s Ears monument, taking the land away from a coalition of native American tribes so it can be broken up and sold to mining and lumber interests. He introduced a Constitutional amendment that would take away the right of the President to designate national monuments, and has fought to weaken environmental laws and neuter federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the Forest Service.

Award: Perhaps having the federal agencies return the favor.

 

It looks like 2017 will have some epic battles between conservationists and corporate polluters. Please keep in mind those who affect the environment the most for good or ill for your 2017 nominations.

(c) 2017 – J.C. Moore

 

The 2015 Environmental Hall of Fame/Shame Winners

Thu ,31/03/2016
The picture at the right  Moonreminds us of how beautiful, small, and finite the Earth is – and how important it is that we protect it. This contest was designed to identify those who work to protect the Earth and those who would damage it through their actions. The 2015 Environmental Hall of Fame and Hall of Shame contests were carried out on four websites and the votes were combined to determine those who have most affected the environment.

The 2015 Environmental Hall of Fame Winners are:

1. (37% of vote) Bill Nye the science guy, and Neil deGrasse Tyson for their efforts at educating the public. Hearing them together on Tyson’s Star Talk radio show makes me think that they should have a prime time TV show. They are a riot together and certainly help people understand the science of global warming. Prize : A prime time TV show together.

 

2. (25%) President Barack Obama, both for managing to thread the needle in Paris and for postponing the decision on Keystone XL until it was uneconomical and too late for anybody in Congress to want to do anything in a presidential election year. Pres. Obama managed to tie the US Paris agreement to a previous treaty to avoid a possible defeat in Congress if it needed their approval. Prize : An political chess set.

3. (19%) Representative Chris Gibson (R-NY) for introducing H. Res. 424, a Republican Climate Resolution to address mitigating global warming. He, along with 12 Republican cosponsors, support  H. Res. 424 which states, “It is a conservative principle to protect, conserve, and be good stewards of our environment.” This is a very hopeful sign of progress along the road to bipartisan climate action. Prize: Enough political support to ward off Americans for Prosperity and other climate change deniers.

4. (19%) California Governor Jerry Brown for his tireless efforts to make policies and laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to protect the residents of CA  and the surrounding states from the worst impacts of global warming.  He has signed pacts to combat the planet’s warming with leaders from 13 countries including Mexico, China, North America, Japan, Israel and Peru. Reward: More support from the U.S. Congress.

Honorable Mention. The “little old guy” from the retirement center seen several times a week   leaning on his cane to pick up stuff other people believe they couldn’t be bothered with.  (And does it while walking a dog). Award: Our thanks for being such a good example to us all.

 

Hall of Shame Recipients are: 

1. ( 45%) The dishonorable Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan and his sycophants for not only allowing the poisoning of Flint Michigan children but also insisting that the healthcare professionals who brought this to their attention be dismissed and demeaned by Michigan Environmental officials. To save money, the state switched Flint’s water supply to that of the corrosive water of Flint River, which leached lead out of the city’s water pipes, affecting the resident’s health and causing lead poisoning in thousands of Flint’s children.

Award: A lead pipe connection for their office water supply from the Flint River.

2. ( 35% ) The 114th Congress of the United States for their repeated acts, statements, and actions against climate science, scientist, and new clean energy technologies – and for being out of step with the American public who by a majority in both parties support efforts to reduce CO2. An example would be Lamar Smith (R -TX) for trying to influence the science findings at NOAA.  Award: A huge dearth of votes in the next election for those who oppose climate science.

3.  (10%)  Exxon/Mobil for their continued climate denial and for sowing doubt about CO2’s role in global warming even though their own scientists knew in 1980 that CO2 from fossil fuels was the cause.  Though their lying to the public is apparently not against the law, lying to their stockholders is , and several states are moving to sue them for damages. Award: Judgments against Exxon/Mobil like those against tobacco companies.


4. ( 10%) North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory and the NC lawmakers who tacked on a 61-page “business-friendly” measure to a 1-page technical bill – then rammed through the law without public input. It:

  • Gave polluters immunity from certain fines & penalties
  • Allows polluters to avoid full cleanup of soil and groundwater contamination
  • Permits polluters to self-report without enforcement or fines
  • Rolls back clean water and air protections
  • Rejects science on sea level rise

Award: Nickname North Carolina the “Polluters Paradise” in their honor.

Note: Senator James Inhofe,  the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,  was nominated so many times that he was awarded a Lifetime Membership in the Environmental Hall of Shame to give others a chance. He claims “climate change is the biggest hoax in history” and wrote a book about it (reviewed here). He is famous for comparing the EPA to a Gestapo bureaucracy, appearing at climate conferences as if he spoke for the US, and bringing snowballs onto the senate floor as if they proved climate change is a hoax. The person who nominated him for a Lifetime Award thought he should be barraged with snowballs for as long as it snows in Washington D.C..

(C) 2016 J.C. Moore

 

Poll: Vote for the 2015 Hall Of Fame and Hall of Shame Candidates

Mon ,07/03/2016

Thanks  to those of you who submitted nominations. The four top candidates in each category have been selected from Moonthose you nominated. Please help select the winners by voting for the nominee who you think has most affected the environment for good or ill.  If you will, please post a reason for your vote and a suggestion for suitable gifts for your favorite candidate. The most interesting and humorous gift suggestions will be acknowledged.

Voting will close and the winners announced on March 30, 2016. Please  put your choice in each category as a comment below or you may vote in a poll at this site.

Hall of Fame Nominees

1. Bill Nye, the science guy, and Neil deGrasse Tyson for their efforts at educating the public. Hearing them together on Tyson’s Star Talk radio show makes me think that they should have a prime time TV show. They are a riot together and certainly help people understand global warming.

Prize : A prime time TV show together.

2. Representative Chris Gibson (R-NY) for introducing H. Res. 424, a Republican Climate Resolution to address mitigating global warming. He, along with 12 Republican cosponsors, support  H. Res. 424 which states, “It is a conservative principle to protect, conserve, and be good stewards of our environment.” This is a very hopeful sign of progress along the road to bipartisan climate action.

Suggested Prize: Enough support to ward off Americans for Prosperity and other climate change deniers.

3. President Barack Obama, both for managing to thread the needle in Paris and for postponing the decision on Keystone XL until it was uneconomical and too late for anybody in Congress to want to do anything in a presidential election year. Pres. Obama managed to tie the US Paris agreement to a previous treaty to avoid a possible defeat in Congress if it needed their approval.

Prize : An political chess set.

4. California Governor Jerry Brown for his tireless efforts and laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to protect the residents of CA  and the surrounding states from the worst impacts of global warming.  He has signed pacts to combat the planet’s warming with leaders from 13 countries including Mexico, China, North America, Japan, Israel and Peru.

Hoped for Reward: More support from the U.S. Congress.

 

Hall of Shame Nominees

1. The dishonorable Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan and his sycophants for not only allowing the poisoning of Flint Michigan children but also insisting that the healthcare professionals who brought this to their attention be dismissed and demeaned by Michigan Environmental officials. To save money, the state switched Flint’s water supply to that of the corrosive water of Flint River, which leached lead out of the city’s water pipes, affecting the resident’s health and causing lead poisoning in thousands of Flint’s children.

Award: Please suggest a suitable nonviolent award.

2. The 114th Congress of the United States. Reason: For their repeated acts and statements and actions against climate science, scientist, and new clean energy technologies, and for being out of step with the American public who by a majority in both parties support efforts to reduce CO2. An example would be Lamar Smith (R -TX) for trying to dictate the science findings at NOAA.

Suggested Award: A huge dearth of votes in the next election for them all.

3.  Exxon/Mobil for their continued climate denial and for sowing doubt about CO2’s role in global warming even though their own scientists knew in 1980 that CO2 from fossil fuels was the cause.  Though their lying to the public is apparently not against the law, lying to their stockholders is , and several states are moving to sue them for damages.

Prize: Judgments against Exxon/Mobil like those against tobacco companies.


4. North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory and the NC lawmakers who tacked on a 61-page “business-friendly” measure to a 1-page technical bill – then rammed through the law without public input. It:

  • Gave polluters immunity from certain fines & penalties
  • Allows polluters to avoid full cleanup of soil and groundwater contamination
  • Permits polluters to self-report without enforcement or fines
  • Rolls back clean water and air protections
  • Rejects science on sea level rise

Suggested Award: Nickname North Carolina the “Polluters Paradise”.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This poll was conducted on four internet sites. The  poll will close on March 30, 2015.

Please  put your choice in each category as a comment below or you may vote in a poll at this site.

(C) 2016 J.C. Moore

Note: Senator James Inhofe,  the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,  has been nominated so many times that he is now being awarded a Lifetime Membership in the Environmental Hall of Shame to give others a chance. He claims “climate change is the biggest hoax in history” and wrote a book about it (reviewed here). He is famous for comparing the EPA to a Gestapo bureaucracy, appearing at climate conferences as if he spoke for the US, and bringing snowballs onto the senate floor as if they proved climate change is a hoax. The person who nominated him for a Lifetime Award thought he should be barraged with snowballs for as long as it snows in Washington D.C..

James Taylor: EDF's Top 10 Global Warming Lies – Or Not

Sun ,06/12/2015

 

James Taylor has published an opinion piece in Forbes about the Top 10 Global Warming Lies put forward by “climate edfalarmists”. The climate alarmists are the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) as they recently sent out a mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,”. The EDF’s  positions sound very much like the things you read in reputable news sources and peer-reviewed science articles, so it is hard to see them as lies. According to a search of Google Scholar, James M. Taylor has not published any research in peer-reviewed journals, but he has published numerous articles with the Heartland Institute. As one Forbes reader commented, “If you take the time to check Taylor’s linked references, you’ll find they are to his own articles, debunked papers, or to papers that don’t even support his conclusion or statement. It’s all smoke and mirrors!”

Smoke certainly. James Taylor once wrote articles for the Heartland Institute claiming that smoking and secondhand smoke were harmless. He has now turned his talents to writing articles that deny the effects of global warming. His work earned Forbes third place in the 2011 Environmental Hall of Shame contest. The award went to: ”Forbes Magazine (James Taylor) for a ridiculously misleading article, New NASA data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism, that described climate scientists as “alarmist” 15 times. Award: A copy of the book Ethics And Journalism and a complete ban on ever using the words ‘alarmist’ again.”

Apparently neither he nor the Forbes’ editors paid much attention to the book on ethics, or the ban on using the word “alarmist” . This article uses the word “alarmist” more times than you would care to count. Forbes does now require that Mr. Taylor put a disclaimer on his articles saying that they are his own opinion. James Taylor is a lawyer and his client is the Heartland Institute and the fossil fuel companies they represent. His job is not to enlighten you, but to cause doubt about whether his client is guilty. Scientists publish their work in peer-reviewed journals along with the data that backs up their conclusions. If Mr. Taylor thinks they make mistakes, it is up to him to provide evidence that refutes their work. However, he does not do that as he has little  evidence. Links in his article take you to other articles he has written which sometimes have a few references to blog sites or occasionally an article in a magazine which has not been peer-reviewed for its accuracy.  As one Forbes reader commented,  “This paid propaganda brought to you by the donors to the Heartburn Institute. Enjoy it with a pack of cigarettes.”

To avoid confusion, I have listed what Mr. Taylor calls EDF’s Alarmist Assertions. This is followed by Mr. Taylor’s attempt to discount the EDF’s assertion, which is labeled Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal . This is then followed by – Or Not which compares Mr. Taylor’s rebuttals  to reliable sources and peer-reviewed literature. It may take two packs for you to get through all this – or, you may just jump to the topics that interest you.

Alarmist Assertion #1 “Bats Drop from the Sky – In 2014, a scorching summer heat wave caused more than 100,000 bats to literally drop dead and fall from the sky in Queensland, Australia.”

Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal: Objective science proves extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and droughts have become less frequent and less severe as a result of the Earth’s recent modest warming.  … Global warming alarmists’ preferred electricity source – wind power – kills nearly 1 million bats every year (to say nothing of the more than 500,000 birds killed every year) in the United States alone.

– Or Not: Bat experts have noted that bats are very sensitive to high temperatures and Australia had its hottest summer on record in 2014. Research published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society shows that global warming was responsible for making 14 natural disasters more extreme, including the Australian heat wave. His claim that that wind turbines kills more than 1 million bats every year is irrelevant and not supported by reliable research. His reference leads to a previous article he has written which referenced a self-published magazine article whose author came up with that number by using estimates from unpublished sources. Try following his references and see where they lead.

Alarmist Assertion #2  “Lyme Disease Spreads” – Warmer temperatures are contributing to the range expansion and severity of tick-borne Lyme disease.”

Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal: Lyme Disease is much more common in northern, cooler regions of the United States than in southern, warmer regions…. Any attempts to claim global warming will cause a few more Lyme Disease deaths must be weighed against the 36,000 Americans who are killed by the flu each year. The U.S. National Institutes of Health have documented how influenza is aided and abetted by cold climate.

– Or Not:  This  Scientific American article describes how the vectors for Lyme disease are growing in the northern regions of North America and declining in the South – more evidence for climate change. The flu comment is just a red herring as flu is a communicable illness spread from person-to-person when cold weather brings more people in contact.

Alarmist Assertion #3 “National Security Threatened – The impacts of climate change are expected to act as a ‘threat multiplier’ in many of the world’s most unstable regions, exacerbating droughts and other natural disasters as well as leading to food, water and other resource shortages that may spur mass migrations.”

Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal: The alarmists’ asserted national security threat depends on assertions that (1) global warming is causing a reduction in food and water supplies and (2) migrations of people to places with more food and water will increase risks of military conflict.

– Or Not:  The Department of Defense’s Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap  explains how our military leaders plan to address the reality of global warming.  CIA Director John Brennan offered a  candid assessment of the security issues:

Last year was the warmest on record, and this year is on track to be even warmer. Extreme weather, along with public policies affecting food and water supplies, can worsen or create humanitarian crises. Of the most immediate concern, sharply reduced crop yields in multiple places simultaneously could trigger a shock in food prices with devastating effect, especially in already fragile regions such as Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.

 A recent New York Times article explains that the drought caused by global warming was a major factor in triggering the Syrian civil war.

 Alarmist Assertion #4 “Sea Levels Rising – Warmer temperatures are causing glaciers and polar ice sheets to melt, increasing the amount of water in the world’s seas and oceans.”

Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal: The pace of sea level rise remained relatively constant throughout the 20th century, even as global temperatures gradually rose. Also, the alarmist assertion that polar ice sheets are melting is simply false. Although alarmists frequently point to a modest recent shrinkage in the Arctic ice sheet, that decline has been completely offset by ice sheet expansion in the Antarctic. Cumulatively, polar ice sheets have not declined at all since NASA satellite instruments began precisely measuring them 35 years ago.

– Or Not: Studies have confirmed that more than 90% of the world’s glaciers are retreating and that Glacier National Park may become ice free in this century. Alsonote that Mr. Taylor does not claim that the sea levels have not risen, but that it is the pace of the sea level rise has remained constant,( i.e, the sea levels are most surely rising). The only reasonable explanations for this sea level rise are that the oceans are getting warmer and expanding – and that glaciers are melting and adding more water to the oceans.

Both the Antarctic and the Arctic are losing substantial amounts of ice. (See  #10 for an explanation about the Antarctic ice. ) As shown in the satellite pictures below,  the Arctic ice extent has declined about 35% in the last 30 years. You might wonder why Mr. Taylor would distort data which can be so easily checked . Apparently Forbes editors do not check such things.

Current Sea Ice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alarmist Assertion #5  “Allergies Worsen – Allergy sufferers beware: Climate change could cause pollen counts to double in the next 30 years. The warming temperatures cause advancing weed growth, a bane for allergy sufferers.”

Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:  Pollen is a product and mechanism of plant reproduction and growth. Indeed, NASA satellite instruments have documented a spectacular greening of the Earth, with foliage gains most prevalent in previously arid, semi-desert regions.

– Or Not: Pollen producing weeds such as ragweed are experiencing longer growing seasons and extending their ranges further northward. This is further evidence of climate change. Keep your antihistamines handy.

 Alarmist Assertion #6 “Beetles Destroy Iconic Western Forests – Climate change has sent tree-killing beetles called mountain pine beetles into overdrive. Under normal conditions those beetles reproduce just once annually, but the warming climate has allowed them to churn out an extra generation of new bugs each year.”

Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:  Alarmists claim warmer winters are causing an increase in pine beetle populations. This assertion is thoroughly debunked by objective, real-world data.

– Or Not: The extra generation of bark beetles each season has caused an exponential increase in their population causing a plague of bark beetles that in the last quarter-century has killed more than 30 billion pine and spruce trees from Alaska to New Mexico. Perhaps Mr. Taylor can explain why the plague of beetles started about the time winter temperatures began increasing in their range.

Alarmist Assertion #7 “Canada: The New America – ‘Lusher’ vegetation growth typically associated with the United States is now becoming more common in Canada, scientists reported in a 2012 Nature Climate Change study.”

Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:  Only global warming alarmists would claim that lusher vegetation and more abundant plant life is a bad thing.

– Or Not: Climate scientists point to this as further evidence that Canada’s climate is changing in response to global warming. It may be a bad thing for Canada, as much of the growth may be from invasive species.

Alarmist Assertion #8  “Economic Consequences – The costs associated with climate change rise along with the temperatures. Severe storms and floods combined with agricultural losses cause billions of dollars in damages, and money is needed to treat and control the spread of disease”

Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:  Severe storms, floods and agricultural losses may cost a great deal of money, but such extreme weather events – and their resulting costs – are dramatically declining as the Earth modestly warms.

– Or Not: Mr. Taylor needs to check with the large secondary insurance company Munich Re, which  has a department which studies insurance losses from natural catastrophes. Their graph below shows that while losses from geophysical natural catastrophes ( in red ) have remained relatively constant  over the past 35 years – the climate related catastrophes have increased about 2 1/2 times. Coincidence?

Permission Courtesy of Munich Re.

Permission Courtesy of Munich Re.

Alarmist Assertion #9 “Infectious Diseases Thrive – The World Health Organization reports that outbreaks of new or resurgent diseases are on the rise and in more disparate countries than ever before, including tropical illnesses in once cold climates.”

Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:   For example, DDT had all but eliminated malaria in the United States and on the global stage during the mid-20th century. However, environmental activists championed false environmental accusations against DDT and dramatically reduced use of the life-saving mosquito killer throughout much of the world.

– Or Not: The World Health Organization reports that, “though global warming may bring some localized benefits, such as fewer winter deaths in temperate climates and increased food production in certain areas, the overall health effects of a changing climate are likely to be overwhelmingly negative. ” Who should you believe, the World Health Organization or Mr.  Taylor? He claims that the real problem is that we are not using DDT anymore, but he is apparently not aware that insects built up a tolerance to it. Since he was quite concerned in #1 about wind turbines killing bats and birds, should he not be concerned that DDT almost wiped out many species of birds, including Eagles in North America?

Alarmist Assertion #10  “Shrinking Glaciers – In 2013, an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago broke off the Pine Island Glacier, the most important glacier of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. And at Montana’s Glacier National Park glaciers have gone from 150 to just 35 over the past century.”

Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:  Calling attention to anecdotal incidents of icebergs breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet, while deliberately ignoring the overall growth of the Antarctic ice sheet, is a misleading and favorite tactic of global warming alarmists.

– Or Not:  There are two processes occurring in Antarctica. The warmer oceans around Antarctica are causing more snow to fall on the mountains in East Antarctica, so the glaciers there are growing. The warmer oceans are also eroding the ice sheets in West

Antarctic ice mass from GRACE satellite data.

Antarctic ice mass from GRACE satellite data.

Antarctica, causing ice loss and huge icebergs to break off.  The GRACE satellite data at the right shows that overall the mass of ice in Antarctica is declining.The extent (or area) of the Antarctic ice is irrelevant as the area of thin ice sheets grow and shrink with the seasons and the weather.

If glaciers are not melting and the oceans are not warming, then Mr. Taylor needs to explain what is causing the sea levels to rise.

 

 

Paris: Mr. Taylor uses a word “alarmist” as a pejorative to discount what the scientists are saying, but it is one of the few things he has right. Climate scientists are very alarmed that the world is on a path to end civilization as we know it by 2100, and that he, Forbes, the Wall  Street Journal, Investor Business Daily, and our Congress is in denial. Here is what will happen to the world if we do not listen to the scientists and take binding action at the Paris Climate Conference. The graph below charts three paths, no action on carbon emissions, current commitments in red, and the path we need to be on if the world as we know it is to survive. Which path would you choose?Temp paths

 

 

 

 

(c) 2015   –  J.C. Moore

Paris Climate Conference: Pope Francis and CEOs Urge Action

Fri ,23/10/2015

On his world tour, Pope Francis called on world leaders to address climate change in November at the Paris Climate Conference. eiffelIt is not just religious leaders and climate scientist who are concerned, but business leaders who are aware that climate change will hurt the world’s economy. A recent study, published in the journal Nature, found that temperature change due to unmitigated global warming will leave global GDP per capita 23% lower in 2100 than it would be without any warming.

Joining the call for action on climate change are companies such as Nike, Walmart, Goldman Sachs, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble, Salesforce, Starbucks, Steelcase, and Voya Financial, all who have adopted a goal of 100 %  renewable energy.  Food Companies are concerned that climate change is threatening our food supply. CEOs of Kellogg’s, Mars, Dannon, Ben & Jerry’s, Stonyfield Farms, and Nestlé have signed a letter urging US and global leaders to “meaningfully address the reality of climate change.”

By this week, 81 big-name corporations representing 9 million employees and $5 trillion in market capitalization have signed on to the President’s “Act on Climate” pledge.

 

THE AMERICAN BUSINESS “ACT ON CLIMATE PLEDGE”

 “We applaud the growing number of countries that have already set ambitious targets for climate action. In this context, we support the conclusion of a climate change agreement in Paris that takes a strong step forward toward a low-carbon, sustainable future.

We recognize that delaying action on climate change will be costly in economic and human terms, while accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy will produce multiple benefits with regard to sustainable economic growth, public health, resilience to natural disasters, and the health of the global environment.”

 

The list of the corporations taking the pledge and a summary of their pledges are listed in this White House fact sheet. Their pledges set ambitious, company-specific goals such as:

Reducing emissions by as much as 50 percent,

Reducing water usage by as much as 80 percent,

Achieving zero waste-to-landfill,

Purchasing 100 percent renewable energy, and

Pursuing zero net deforestation in supply chains.

Most importantly, these companies set an example to their peers who will be asked to sign onto the pledge before the Paris Conference.

The plan to reduce emissions with broad bipartisan support in the US is the carbon fee and dividend as proposed by the Citizens’ ccl1Climate Lobby. Their proposal would place a fee on carbon at the source and allow market forces to encourage reduced emissions, energy conservation, and investments in renewable energy. The carbon fee is not a tax as proceeds would be distributed equally to every household as a monthly energy dividend. It would effectively stimulate the economy and add an estimated 2.8 million jobs over the next 20 years. What could be a better plan?

 

(c) 2015 J.C. Moore

The League of Conservation Voters: Do We Need These Policies to Benefit Big Oil

Sun ,02/11/2014

Oil has helped us develop our civilization and our economy and we will need it far into the future as a fuel and as a raw material. Four generations of my family have worked in the all business, and Big Oil does not represent the small independent oil companies we helped develop in Oklahoma.  Nor aaoildoes Big Oil represent the average American citizen very well. They represent the large international oil companies who have little loyalty to the United States, but who have enough money to influence our politics to pass laws and provide subsidies in their favor.

Big Oil has opposed regulations designed to protect people’s health and the environment. There is nothing conservative about that. The Canadian XL pipeline will allow a foreign country to take American property by eminent domain, will greatly increase the risk of damage from oil spills, and will provide oil to be shipped overseas to increase the profit of the international oil companies.

It is important that we preserve our national wildlife areas and the natural resources under them for the future, yet Big Oil is trying to remove the protections provided on our parks and federal lands. It is fiscally irresponsible to give large subsidies and tax breaks to Big Oil, made up of very profitable and well-established companies – when our country is trying to cut our national spending. And while Big Oil is promoting free market principles for itself, it is promoting anti-competitive principles and laws to reduce competition from renewable energy sources.

Recently one of big oil’s lobbyists, Richard Berman, was secretly taped as he solicited $3 million from oil and gas executives to finance an advertising public relations campaign to discredit environmentalists and celebrities that support them. He told the executives they must be willing to exploit emotions like fear, greed, and anger and turn it against environmental groups. And major corporations secretly financing such a campaign should not worry about offending the general public. he said, because “you can either win ugly or lose pretty”.

The League of Conservation Voters wishes to remind us that Big Oil is spending millions of dollars to promote candidates who will further their interests. And while some of their interests are in our national interest, many are not – and it is important that we elect candidates who will distinguish between the two. Although in the past, many conservative Republicans were champions for the environment, that has changed .  Many Republican candidates now are ranked at less than 10% by the LCV, while the national average is 43% for Representatives and 57% for Senators.   The League of Conservation Voters rates the candidates based upon their past voting records, and you may find out which candidates represent you and the environment at the LCV website.