Category Archives: carbon dioxide

Took me out to the ballgame …

Last evening, amid gorgeous weather, a call to action sent me out to the ballgame. While the 14-inning game was great (GO NATS!), play on the field wasn’t the only action.

The Strike Out Exxon campaign began yesterday. The Washington Nationals new stadium is the “greenest” baseball. And, who is one of their principle advertisers: that great friend of the environment Exxon-Mobil. A coalition has come together to call attention to this absurdity and to Exxon-Mobil’s roadblocking of action against Global Warming.
Continue reading

Advertisements

The power of 350 … spreading the word

Prior to the industrial era, the atmosphere was at about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide.  Now, we are about 387 and growing at nearly 2 ppm per year.

The ‘old’ (a few years ago) scientific consideration was that it seemed we could stabilize, without utterly catastrophic risk, at 450 ppm or below.  This is the guiding thinking behind cutting carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Jim Hansen, NASA and one of the strongest voices in climate research, came out with work stating that we must fall to 350 ppm to avoid catastrophic climate change, considering the impacts that we are already seeing globally. 350 is required, Hansen tells us,

If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted.

We face a simple challenge, as a society (and species):  350 or bust!
Continue reading

Will-fully Ignorant

We could easily ask: Washington Post editors, are you idiots? In publishing George F. Will’s Carbon Power Brokers, the Post editorial board is complicit in the dissemination of deceptiveness and falsehoods surrounding policy making on what likely will be the most significant issue of the 21st century. The Post published this deceptive drivel the day before the US Senate begins debating the Lieberman-Warner Climate inSecurity Act. While, clearly, I have quite serious problems with the CiSA and do not support its passage, this debate and discussion should be on the basis of fact and truth, rather then deceit and truthiness.

As an example of a direct falsehood, Will writes that John McCain supports the bill. Oops, BUZZ, false.  John McCain has mouthed some strong words on Global Warming but has managed to be AWOL on every vote that matters when it comes to clean technology and environmental issues in the past year. His staff has already announced that this won’t be an exception to that rule.  John McCain doesn’t support Lieberman-Warner (his two biggest Senate supporters) and won’t be there to vote on the billMcFlip McFlop McSame McCain‘s deceptive sleight of hand continues: listen to what I say, don’t watch what I do when it comes to the reality of Global Warming. That is, unless you’re in the reality-denial world, then ignore what I say and watch what I do. There seems to be an expression for this. What is it? Oh, yeah, “McCain wants to have his cake and eat it too.”  To share that cake with George W Bush no matter what storms hit America’s shores.

Join me for a stroll through Will’s willful ignorance …

Continue reading

Chambering a round against future commerce

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce continues its deceptive campaign tour to fight any meaningful efforts to deal with Global Warming.

Last week, the USCOC joined up with Senator George Voinovich in Columbus, Ohio, for the session deceptively entitled “Comprehensive Approach to Energy and Climate Change“. From the speech by USCOC President Thomas J. Donohue, he described the USCOC opposition to the Lieberman-Warner Coal-Subsidy Act because:

“its targets and mandates are simply not realistic or achievable.”

I might agree that they are not realistic. Lieberman-Warner’s targets are not realistic because they do not do what is required to give a chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.

“Not … achievable.” That claim is beyond ridicule and disgust. It is willful deceit. Achieving much stronger reductions that outlined in the CISA is achievable, it simply requires the will (political) to set serious targets and work toward them.

Continue reading

Obama Message Coopted by Pollution Front Group

The Astroturf Organization Formerly Known As ABEC has come out with a doozy of a first ad.

In the battle to protect our future, the alphabet list of astroturf organizations working to undercut a habitable tomorrow is an ever-growing soup.  Tracking the  $35 million+ associated with “Americans for Balanced Energy Choices provided easily full-time employment for some dedicated people.

Perhaps, these astroturfers felt some pressure.  Recently formed, just in time for Earth Day, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

When you hear/see that term, think Clear Skies and other Bushisms … “Clean Coal” is a euphemism for Sort-of Less Dirty Coal, Somewhat Less Polluting Coal, Supposedly Less Deadly Coal.

Continue reading

Coal Industry “Principles”?

The Coal Industry came a callin’, complaining that I had not adequately examined their “principles” in commenting on the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity‘s (ACCCE‘s) new advertising campaign that bears an unnerving similarity to wording from Senator Obama’s Presidential campaign and from Al Gore’s We campaign.  Their comment (complaint):

By concentrating on the name change, as you do, you glossed over the REAL news about the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity:

For the first time, we have over 40 coal-related companies agreeing to federal regulation of carbon dioxide, provided our 12 principles are met.

Is this “REAL news” or is that “provided” an opening for a subordinate clause that is dominant? 

Let’s take a look.

Continue reading

WE … WashPost Reporting Balanced vs Objective

Tomorrow, Al Gore and the Alliance for Climate Protection are launching a $300 million advertising campaign to mobilize American support for serious action to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in “one of the most ambitious and costly public advocacy campaigns in U.S. history.”

One of the real challenges when it comes to press reporting on Global Warming issues is the desire for “balance” in reporting, the desire to have all sides represented.  This balance, of course, can be contrasted (balanced) by the question of objectivity, of focusing on facts.  With the first, Flat Earth society members would be quoted in any discussion of NASA programs.  With objective reporting, they wouldn’t even be in the reporter’s rolodex.  Sadly, as Al Gore highlighted in An Inconvenient Truth, “balance” is more prevalent than “objective” when it comes to Global Warming reporting, truthiness rather than truth.

With that context, let us look at the prominent Washington Post article on the We campaign, by staff reporter Juliet Eilperin.  This was (is) a relatively good article that discusses the campaign’s approach and objectives, with the desire to change the way the public thinks about Global Warming, options for moving forward, and translating this into impetus for serious Congressional action: Continue reading