A Great Day, and More Work To Do

Thanks to all those who participated in the planet's most widespread day of political action ever- with over 5,200 events in 181 countries! There was scant to no mainstream media coverage of Santa Fe's action involving 350 people, but there was a huge amount of coverage worldwide, including front-page stories in the New York Times and International Herald Tribune and top stories on Google News and CNN World online. Thanks to Barbara Wold for coverage on her blog Democracy for New Mexico. Organizers posted photos to 350.org from Papua New Guinea to New Jersey, Botswana to Brooklyn, Antarctica to China. Go see them--they're amazing and inspiring! And if you haven't contacted your Senators to demand the strongest climate legislation they can deliver, click here to do that. See my Aug. 28 post for more info.

Now, back to refuting myths, which I started in my Oct. 16 post. Myth #2: CO2 is not a major cause of climate change. Ads on TV and sites on the Internet proclaim this myth. But that's just what it is, a myth.

Fact: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (an international group of climate scientists established by the UN Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization), "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC and many other sources. If you're worried about the phrase "very likely," realize that the IPCC has a reputation for being conservative, because it can only report what all its many scientist from all over the world agree on.

Fact: The US National Academy of Sciences along with 10 other national science academies proclaimed in 2005 that the evidence for human-caused global warming is strong enough for governments to take rapid action.

Fact: 97% of US climate scientists surveyed agree that human activity has been a significant factor in rising average global temperatures.
Send us your thoughts and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Global Warming Myths and Facts

Due to the persistent publicizing of myths and misleading statements about climate change, whether or not humans are the cause, and whether we can do something about it (including those annoying and reckless ads proclaiming CO2 is Green), and due to the fact that I presented this information at church last Sunday, I'll be posting some common myths about global warming and the facts that refute them. Remember the international Day of Action on climate change Saturday, Oct. 24! Here in Santa Fe, it starts at 1 p.m. at the Center for Contemporary Arts, 1050 Old Santa Fe Trail. See last week's post for more info. Hope to see you there!

1. Myth: The Earth isn't really warming. This myth has been bolstered by a controversy over how much temperatures have been increasing or whether they have possibly been cooling over the last several years to a decade. In any case, it requires at least a 30-year period to determine a climate pattern, as opposed to a weather pattern. Also watch out for myths based on local trends. Conclusions about global warming are based on worldwide and hemisphere-wide data.

Fact: "According to all major temperature reconstructions published in peer-reviewed journals, the increase in temperature in the 20th century and the temperature in the late 20th century is the highest in the record." (Wikipedia; also see the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, RealClimate and many others). The actual temperature record goes back to 1850. Since then, scientists have measured tree rings, ice layers, coral reefs, and other data from all over the world and calibrated it to these temperatures. They can then use older tree ring, ice, and other data to tell what temperatures were in the past. Based on this data, global average temperatures are the highest they've been in at least 1,000 years.

I'll continue this series next week. Until then, post your thoughts in Comments and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Tell EPA What You Think!

You may have heard that the EPA published proposed findings in April that increasing levels of greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare and that vehicle engines contribute to these greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. This step enables the EPA and/or other agencies to join many other nations in regulating greenhouse gases and taking steps to rein in global warming. Greenhouse gas-producing industries will doubtless submit many negative comments on this finding, despite the fact that it is merely re-stating established facts (see the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), so it's important that as many people as possible submit comments in support of these findings. To submit a comment, start by clicking here. Read the page and click on Instructions for Submitting Written Comments (PDF). Read the instructions, but instead of going to www.regulations.gov, click here, and under Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, click on Send a Comment or Submission. This will probably save you time and frustration finding the correct findings to comment on, especially if you've never used the site before. Note that they recommend you include your name and contact info, but if you do, they will be published along with the comments, so either make sure that's okay with you, or don't include your personal info. Real people read these comments, so say why this is important to you. I've included my comment in the next post below, in case it's helpful.

The weather around Santa Fe has turned warm, so I've been riding my bike home from work a couple of times a week. It's about 9 miles, but it's mostly downhill on the way home, so I take my bike on the bus in the morning and ride home in the evening. I've seen a lot more people biking in the last couple of weeks than I ever have before! Send me your ideas for reducing our carbon footprints, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

My comments on EPA's Greenhouse Gas Findings

See my next entry, above, for how to submit your comment on EPA's proposed findings that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health and welfare and that vehicle engines contribute to greenhouse gases (I know, these things seem obvious, but this is an important step in the process). I post this in the hope that it's helpful to someone wishing to submit their own comment. Of course, use your own words.

My name is Bonney Hughes. I am representing myself and my family. I have an M.S. in Environmental Toxicology from Cornell University. I have a blog,
www.carbonlesscopy.blogspot.com, that explores issues related to greenhouse gases, global warming, and citizen action. You may contact me through this blog.

As I'm sure you know, the vast majority of climate scientists agree that current and projected concentrations of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations, and that human activity is increasing the concentrations of these gases. There is
now abundant evidence to support these two statements, summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; in The Hot Topic, by Gabrielle Walker and Sir David King; and in Field Notes from a Catastrophe by Elizabeth Kolbert, to name a few. Public health and welfare are and will be threatened by the effects of increases in greenhouse gases such as: increasing likelihood of stronger hurricanes; less snowfall and more variable rainfall resulting in more drought in some areas and more flooding in others (or a combination in some areas); more heat waves; rising sea levels; increasing rates of species extinction.

It is obvious that motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. Motor vehicle engines produce these gases, these gases are very long-lasting in the atmosphere, and there were 244 million motor vehicles registered in the US in 2006 (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/files/enercomm.html). Since these gases emanate from a huge array of sources, and action by a minority of individuals or companies will not only be ineffective, but put these individuals and companies at a disadvantage in many cases, it is vital that the EPA and other branches of the US government take action to reduce greenhouse gases and ensure that organizations and individuals do so as well.

I strongly support EPA's Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings because they are true and because they represent a first step in this vital direction. I urge EPA and other branches of the US government to take all effective steps to slow and reduce the production of greenhouse gases to reach the goal of 350 ppm CO2 equivalents with all possible speed.

Reducing CO2 won't cost as much as many think

I found a great report through Climate Progress, the blog I talked about last week. The Carbon Productivity Challenge: Curbing climate change and sustaining economic growth, by the McKinsey Global Institute, gives us several bits of good news. First, a significant amount of CO2 equivalents can be cut by employing good old-fashioned ideas like insulation and improving the efficiency of lighting, heating, cooling, and vehicles, which would actually save money. These are some of the first measures we should put in place. Second, the cost to implement all steps needed to keep CO2 equivalents to a level that would avoid drastic consequences by 2030 would be only 0.6-1.4 percent of projected gross domestic product (GDP). This is similar to the cost estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and this form of insurance would cost less than what the world currently spends on insurance (not counting life insurance), which was 3.3 percent of GDP in 2005.

McKinsey's research also debunks some myths about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Contrary to the common notion that new technology must save us, 70% of reductions needed by 2030 don't depend on new technology. Read the summary here. At the bottom, there's a link to the full report.

Send me your ideas on what we can all do to reduce global warming, and stay cool!

Well, there's some good news and some bad news this week. The bad news is that Chris Fields, one of the heads of the Nobel-awarded Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says that greenhouse gas emissions have been growing even faster than climate models projected. This makes the good news that President Obama asked Congress to send him cap-and-trade legislation to reduce global warming especially timely.

What's cap-and-trade? It's a market-based system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that was shown to be quite effective in reducing the sufur dioxide pollution that caused acid rain. It puts a strict limit on emissions, and the sources of these emissions then receive a permit to pollute, basically, up to a given limit. These permits are such that total emissions don't exceed the strict emissions limit. The system allows the emitters to stay within their limit any way they see fit. Those that emit less than their limit can sell allowances to those who emit more. Before you become horrified, realize that a) the limit is reduced every year and b) this system actually worked more quickly than expected to reduce acid rain emissions, and more cheaply than critics predicted. When's the last time you heard of anything working more quickly than expected in government? Let's get behind this effort, which has been in effect in Europe since 2005.

Read The Hot Topic, by Gabrielle Walker and Sir David King, for a good description of cap and trade, p. 156, and a wealth of good information on global warming solutions. And send me your tips and global warming info!

Bonney