Is there consensus on global warming, or not? In "The cold truth about climate change", on Salon.com, writer Joseph Romm argues that talking about “consensus” muddies the argument even further.
“Deniers continue to insist there's no consensus on global warming,” Romm writes. “Well, there's not. There's well-tested science and real-world observations.”
Romm’s intelligent article clarifies the difference between consensus and the weight of evidence based on numerous scientific studies, and notes that many of the doubters seem to have no real idea of what science actually is.
And what does the science say? Romm writes: “Well, the IPCC's definitive treatment of the subject, ‘Understanding and Attributing Climate Change,’ has 11 full pages of references, some 500 peer-reviewed studies. This is not a consensus of opinion. It is what scientific research and actual observations reveal.”
Romm goes on to challenge those who argue that the sun is the main cause of global warming: “The view that the sun is the source of observed global warming seems credible mainly to people who are open to believing that the entire scientific community has somehow, over a period of several decades, failed to adequately study, analyze and understand the most visible influence on the Earth's temperature.”
If some of Canada’s mainstream media would carry more of this kind of intelligent writing on the subject, rather than uninformed rants by columnists who won’t even take the time to do basic research, maybe the discussion would rise to a level that sparks people to action while we still have time.
As if it wasn't enough to be blessed by the weather (it's 12 degrees Celsius in February) we West-Coasters can now look forward to a $100 check in the mail this June. The money's coming to ensure that BC's recently announced carbon tax will be revenue-neutral. But what to do with the money? The Tyee wants to know your plan.
Me? I'm gonna spent my $100 on a wild night on the town. I'll use the remainder to offset my flights to become carbon neutral.
You're probably heard something about the problems with the way farmed salmon are being raised of the coast of British Columbia and other places. The standard method is called open-net pen farming. The main problems with that are the heavy amounts of effluent (a polite euphemism for fish crap) and the sea lice that escape from open-net pens.
There's a better, smarter way to farm-raise fish. It's called closed containment.AgriMarine Industries, based in Campbell River on Vancouver Island, plans to open its first closed-containment farm in May. Closed containment doesn't let effluent escape; it treats and removes it from the water fish are raised in. And because the containment walls are fiberglass instead of open nets, parasites like sea lice can't escape to kill juvenile salmon.
We know AgriMarine's system works. Scott Wallace from the David Suzuki Foundation's marine team is one of the company's advisors and environmental consultants.
There's lots of ways to impress people, but few will raise your esteem among peers than an intricate knowledge of an economic instrument known as carbon pricing.
OK, maybe not.
But economists who spend time thinking about this stuff figure it's the most effective way to reduce carbon dioxide—a greenhouse gas.
It's not just theory though. Sweden, German, the U.K. and Norway – some of the strongest economies in the world – have had a price on carbon pollution for years. And it works.
More recently the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec have added their own.
Many are now calling for a single national carbon pricing system—it’s simpler, eh?
That’s exactly what the David Suzuki Foundation recommended today in Pricing Carbon--Saving Green.
Have you had your recommended dietary fill of organically grown films this month? If not, consider attending the 11th Annual Vancouver International Mountain Film Festival! The whole she-bang starts February 22nd and runs until the 1st of March. Ian Bruce and Lindsay Coulter will present from the David Suzuki Foundation before showtime on February 26th; part of the Earth Alive Series running February 24th - 28th. Walk the dog early, get a baby sitter, skip yoga and come learn about some great projects and causes. Look forward to seeing you at the H.R. MacMillan Space Centre very soon!
We've just instituted a carbon tax in British Columbia, so this is a good time to talk about incentives to get businesses and individuals to do what needs to be done to address and tackle global warming. Some people say that incentives won't work until the technology is in place to reduce greenhouse gases. There are a number of countries in Europe that disprove that. But it's also disproved by the good people at Pacific Gas & Electric, northern and central California's utility company.
Peter Darbee, PG&E CEO, explained how the right incentives, in the right alignment, made a huge difference. He cited "California’s success in holding per capita energy use flat over the
past 30 years, while the rest of the country has seen a 50 percent
increase. The state adopted aggressive energy efficiency standards for
buildings and appliances, funded programs to commercialize more
efficient technology, and allowed utilities to earn a fair return by
promoting energy savings rather than increasing energy sales. The key in California was smart policy that aligned all the incentives."
Pacific Gas & Electric is also the name of a band who had a hit in 1970, titled "Are You Ready?" This live version doesn't have the female backup singers on the studio recording (which made its obvious gospel elements more overt), but it's still galvanizing.
That's one of the main questions facing all of us as we look to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. The engines that get us and our stuff around have to run on something. But even the initial steps toward corn-based ethanol show that won't work; it shifts the greenhouse gases without eliminating them, does nothing to cut carbon dioxide emissions and is already having an inflationary impact on the price of corn.
Figuring out how to run our vehicles responsibly is the work of the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Institute. Their blog, by Kimberly Taylor, is an excellent place to get the latest thinnking, research and breakthroughs as the planet looks for something to run on that isn't refined from prehistoric plants and animals. It's worth bookmarking and checking regularly.
Invasive marine species are a massive and expanding problem all over the planet. Even as humans fish too much and too much of the wrong fish, we're also helping move invasive species from their native habitats to places where they're successful invaders -- ruinously successful. Author Taras Grescoe identifies some of them and shows how they got to be where they are in an op-ed piece for The New York Times.
While on the rink this weekend, it occurred to me that I should post a few tips for the hockey/ringette season. Us Enviro-Nuts (I know you're one too!) never rest.
Pre-game:
* Wash your gear with eco-conscious laundry soaps. Use cold water and hang to dry.
* Avoid perfumes, spray or dryer sheets to take the stink out. The best deodorizer is baking soda. Leave an open box in the area where you store your gear. Better yet, disinfect nature's way by airing your gear outside in the sun (when possible) given the whole winter season sport and all. Place a few drops of an essential oil like lemon, lime, lavender or whatever your fancy onto a rag and leave it in your bag.
* Carpool to your games and practices. An excellent way to talk strategy before the game or revisit the highlights afterwards!
* Avoid idling your car. And yes, with ice sports comes cold winters - but keep it within reason.
* When traveling for tournaments stay in green hotels close to the rink and rent as few vehicles as possible.
In the Dressing Room:
* Don't use sock tape. It's not reusable or recyclable. Buy shin pads and other gear with Velcro already embedded, or trade the tape for reusable, washable Velcro strips. It'll save you money, too.
* Update your undergarment gear with 100% organic cotton or bamboo and hemp blends. Bamboo is 30% more absorbent than cotton. Here's a fact: conventional farming uses about 1/3 pound of pesticides and fertilizers to make one cotton t-shirt.
* Don't drink bottled water. It's expensive, unregulated (most of the time it's tap water anyways) and the bottles are made of plastic which is petroleum-based and often don't make it to recycling bins. Use tap water in a reusable water bottle, not made from plastic #1 or 7. The safest bottles are made from #2, 4 and 5.
Post-Game:
* Shower with soaps that don't contain sodium laryl sulfate, propylene glycol, parabens, dyes and fragrance.
* If you're thinking about new gear, first look at consignment options or donating your old stuff.
Out in Wyoming, there's a company running a data center (server farm) housing and maintaining servers for all kinds of websites and other enterprises. They're powering the whole place with renewable energy, and determined not to charge customers extra just because the service is a better environmental option. They call it Green House Data, and it's another example of a situation where environmentally responsibility is part of the plan from the beginning, rather than a late addition or an afterthought.
...saves the world. So says The New York Times in its reporting on the "eco-mom" phenomenon. Individual actions and choices making large, positive aggregate differences are what this is all about. The story includes links to online resources, including Green and Clean Mom and Eco-Chick.com.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there is greater than 90 per cent certainty that human activity is causing climate change. The American Academy of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the Royal Society, the Royal Society of Canada, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the American Meteorological Society, and NASA all agree. And no study has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal challenging that consensus. Yet, a growing number of people think the debate is still far from settled. Furthermore, many believe that doing anything to combat the human causes of climate change will destroy the economy. What’s going on?
A comprehensive feature in the Vancouver Courier newspaper sheds some light on the subject. In the article, Vancouver PR expert James Hoggan, who is also chair of the David Suzuki Foundation board, says industry is conducting a deliberate PR campaign to muddy the debate on global warming.
"Climate spin is far more destructive than your run-of-the-mill political misdirection," says Mr. Hoggan in the Courier article. "First, many scientists believe [climate change] is the biggest issue we face today. Second, climate spin – the strategic sowing of climate change confusion – has led to a personal and political paralysis. Governments don't want to act alone, and people are afraid that individual actions are irrelevant. Any time you are trying to spin an issue, rather than facing the underlying problem, you're at risk."
A recent study showing that ExxonMobil contributed large amounts of money to an organization that denies the science behind human-caused global warming appears to back up Mr. Hoggan’s argument.
There’s much more to oceans than appears on the surface.
As writer Barbara Yaffe noted in a recent Vancouver Sun article: “Oceans hold 97 per cent of the globe's water and cover 71 per cent of its surface area, 40 per cent of Canada's. The oceans also produce half the world's oxygen, more than forests. Yet, according to polling data, most folks view oceans in the manner of ‘a respected distant uncle who is out of sight and out of mind.’”
The article discusses a recent initiative by the David Suzuki Foundation, Living Oceans Society, and Sierra Club of B.C. to urge the federal government to protect an area of the north coast of B.C. referred to as the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area, or PNCIMA. (Can you help us come up with a better name?)
It's been a wild ride this week at the David Suzuki Foundation. The National Post blasted Dr. Suzuki with a series of accusations that he's out to lock up his critics (totally wrong) and even that the Foundation's Carbon Neutral program is part of "grand plans for global control." (We actually like this idea.)
Is the Post working its own agenda? You be the judge. Here are Dr. Suzuki's original speaking notes and a response from the editors of the McGill Daily, whose coverage of Suzuki's speech launched the whole brouhaha.
The situation reminds me of Gandhi's famous aphorism: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you.. and then you win."
Has The National Post correctly reported Dr. Suzuki's speech, or do you think they're barking up the wrong tree? Share your comments with us.
Despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, despite the work by former chief of the World Bank -- Sir Nicholas Stern -- showing that cutting greenhouse gas emissions and working to limit and tackle climate change makes economic sense, there remain some willfully ignorant folks who persist in framing the global warming debate as though the environment and the economy are mutually exclusive.
We think of climate policy and energy use as federal or provincial (or state) issues. But a lot of the action on that front is happening among municipal governments. And it's projects in cities and towns that are leading the way in figuring out how best to use energy and cut carbon dioxide emissions. The Wall Street Journal's Jim Carlton talks to the National Resources Defense Council's Ralph Cavanagh about some of the best efforts.
We know it's still early -- primary season and all -- and that neither the Republican nor Democratic races are decided. But one group ois looking to get some attention focused on scientific matters once the conventions have decided who'll be running for the next U.S. presidency.
The group's called Science Debate 2008, and it's looking to get the contenders for the White House to pay attention to and articulate their policies on a range of scientific questions, with the environment first on the list.
The Ontario government has a chance to win my heart this Valentine's Day if it commits to making a strong law to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides throughout the province. But the pesticide industry wants to make sure cosmetic pesticides can continue to be sold at your local gardening store, leaving the law to limit only their use.
Why keep them on store shelves if it's illegal to use them?
Do you lie awake at night thinking about how to decrease your ecological footprint? Bargaining with yourself if its going to be a short lukewarm shower today? Or a buy nothing day tomorrow? Me too.
Well today you can get yourself OFF junk mail. You can do it all in 2 minutes on the Red Dot website because your request goes directly to Canada Post. Getting off the junk mail bandwagon is great because of the use of paper. I doubt any pieces are printed on 100% post consumer, it takes energy to recycle the crap and they're designed to make you consume more. Check out the site. They have good stats.
Whenever discussions of greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel
dependency occur, the notion of biofuels gets kicked around -- or
politely considered, or argued about vehemently. But biofuels --
corn-based ethanol, palm oil, etc. -- aren't solving anything. They're
increasing the amount of greenhouse gases -- mainly carbon dioxide --
in the atmosphere, exacerbating the problem they're supposed to help
solve, global warming. Two new studies in the journal Science
provide a close, detailed look at the environmental costs of biofuels.
From the destruction of carbon-absorbing forests to grow more biofuel
vegetation, to the carbon produced in the cultivation, harvesting and
processing of those plants, biofuel is bad news.
The clearance
of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse
gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said
Joseph Fargione, lead author of the second paper, and a scientist at
the Nature Conservancy. “So for the next 93 years you’re making climate
change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon
emissions.”
Bishops in the UK suggest lightening up for Lent by going on a 40-day carbon fast.
Wine merchants and chocolatiers can exhale a clean breath of relief as the Dioceses of Liverpool and London, with help from the ad agency Tearfund, take on the vice of privileged energy consumption.
The campaign, in its second year, has reached 5 continents and has strong support in Britain. A recent poll undertaken by the group shows 3 of 5 citizens said they would take an energy saving action for Lent.
Regardless of your cosmological investment, there are some great ideas here on how to take 40 steps to a smaller footprint:
And, if you haven’t already, sign up for the David Suzuki Nature Challengeand join a growing community of green-minded individuals as we work to restore a little balance to our lives.
What would you be willing to give up for 40 days? Share your ideas with us!
Posted on behalf of the stunningly clever Brooke McDonald.
| 
