" " " “www.friendster.com/sarahrps”

Sunday, 8 November 2009

Climate change for children in Mexico City museum

Children in one of the world's most polluted cities are learning through a new exhibition how carbon dioxide emissions heat and transform the planet.

A giant polar bear prowling for food on a pile of city rubbish and a dead, white coral reef form part of the Climate Change exhibition in Mexico City's Papalote children's museum, which sits in the capital's Chapultepec park.

Mexico has led global efforts to combat climate change, including a worldwide Green Fund which its leaders plan to promote at a landmark summit in Copenhagen in December.

But many here are unaware of the key issues surrounding global warming, from risks of water shortages to mass migration and conflict if action is not taken fast.

"Climate change in a way is new, so now there's a very big effort, and this exhibition is part of this effort for climate change education at all levels of society," Tiahoga Ruge, an advisor on environmental education, told AFP.

Organisers aim to bring thousands of children and adults through interactive displays at the six-month show, until April 2010, to raise awareness in one of the world's top oil producers, which is battling deforestation and drought.

The exhibition, which was designed by a large group of international scientists to highlight the key issues of global warming, was first shown in the National History Museum in New York and is due to travel internationally.

It is part of growing efforts to raise the profile of climate change surrounding the December 7-18 Copenhagen meeting, which will seek to seal a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, whose obligations to cut emissions expire in 2012.

Mexico has promised to slash its carbon pollution by 50 percent before 2050, although environmental activists say it could do more to reduce fuel burning, a major source of carbon dioxide emissions.

"I think that if everyone in the country starts to think about what we're doing to our own planet, hopefully things will change," said museum visitor and schoolgirl Imelda Moreno Ramirez.

Thursday, 29 October 2009

Signs From Earth: The Heat Is On

Republished from the pages of National Geographic magazine
Written by Joel Achenbach, Heidi Schultz
September 2004

Global warming can seem too remote to worry about, or too uncertain—something projected by the same computer techniques that often can't get next week's weather right. On a raw winter day you might think that a few degrees of warming wouldn't be such a bad thing anyway. And no doubt about it: Warnings about climate change can sound like an environmentalist scare tactic, meant to force us out of our cars and cramp our lifestyles.
Photo: Woman with cow in field, Bangladesh
Global warming may affect livelihoods
ENLARGE
THIS ARTICLE IS FROM
National Geographic Magazine
Photo: Magazine cover
National Geographic Magazine

Limited time offer! 12 issues for the special introductory rate of $15.
ORDER NOW

Comforting thoughts, perhaps. But turn to "GeoSigns," the first chapter in our report on the changing planet. The Earth has some unsettling news.

From Alaska to the snowy peaks of the Andes the world is heating up right now, and fast. Globally, the temperature is up one degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degrees Celsius) over the past century, but some of the coldest, most remote spots have warmed much more. The results aren't pretty. Ice is melting, rivers are running dry, and coasts are eroding, threatening communities. Flora and fauna are feeling the heat too, as you'll read in "EcoSigns." These aren't projections; they are facts on the ground.

The changes are happening largely out of sight. But they shouldn't be out of mind, because they are omens of what's in store for the rest of the planet.

Wait a minute, some doubters say. Climate is notoriously fickle. A thousand years ago Europe was balmy and wine grapes grew in England; by 400 years ago the climate had turned chilly and the Thames froze repeatedly. Maybe the current warming is another natural vagary, just a passing thing?

Don't bet on it, say climate experts. Sure, the natural rhythms of climate might explain a few of the warming signs you'll read about in the following pages. But something else is driving the planet-wide fever.

For centuries we've been clearing forests and burning coal, oil, and gas, pouring carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere faster than plants and oceans can soak them up (see "The Case of the Missing Carbon," February 2004). The atmosphere's level of carbon dioxide now is higher than it has been for hundreds of thousands of years. "We're now geological agents, capable of affecting the processes that determine climate," says George Philander, a climate expert at Princeton University. In effect, we're piling extra blankets on our planet.

Human activity almost certainly drove most of the past century's warming, a landmark report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared in 2001. Global temperatures are shooting up faster than at any other time in the past thousand years. And climate models show that natural forces, such as volcanic eruptions and the slow flickers of the sun, can't explain all that warming.

As carbon dioxide continues to rise, so will the mercury—another three to ten degrees Fahrenheit (1.6 to 5.5 degrees Celsius) by the end of the century, the IPCC projects. But the warming may not be gradual. The records of ancient climate described in "TimeSigns" suggest that the planet has a sticky thermostat. Some experts fear today's temperature rise could accelerate into a devastating climate lurch. Continuing to fiddle with the global thermostat, says Philander, "is just not a wise thing to do."

Already we've pumped out enough greenhouse gases to warm the planet for many decades to come. "We have created the environment in which our children and grandchildren are going to live," says Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. We owe it to them to prepare for higher temperatures and changed weather—and to avoid compounding the damage.

It won't be easy for a world addicted to fossil fuels to limit emissions. Three years ago the United States spurned the Kyoto Protocol, citing cost. But even Kyoto would barely slow the rise in heat-trapping gases. Controlling the increase "would take 40 successful Kyotos," says Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "But we've got to do it."

The signs of warming in the following pages are striking enough, but they are just a taste of the havoc the next century could bring. Can we act in time to avert the worst of it? The Earth will tell.

Living on Thin Ice: Last Days of the Ice Hunters?

Cracking the frigid air with a sealskin whip, a Greenland hunter urges his dogs across sea ice that gets thinner and less stable each year. Out here he's always found game for his family—until now. The problem: The ice is disappearing.
Photo: Sled dogs on ice
Sled dogs sense melting ice.
ENLARGE
THIS ARTICLE IS FROM
National Geographic Magazine
Photo: Magazine cover
National Geographic Magazine

Limited time offer! 12 issues for the special introductory rate of $15.
ORDER NOW

Jens Danielsen kneels on his dogsled as it bumps through the glinting ruins of a frozen sea. "Harru, harru," he calls out. "Go left, go left." "Atsuk, atsuk. Go right, go right." His voice carries a note of urgency. The 15 dogs in his team move warily, picking their way between lanes of open water and translucent sheaves of upended ice. Despite bitter cold in late March, the ice pans have shattered, making travel dangerous.

In a normal winter the ice comes to northwestern Greenland in September and stays until June. But during the past few years there have been only three or four weeks when the ice has been firm and the hunting good. "The sea ice used to be three feet (0.9 meters) thick here," Jens says. "Now it's only four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick."

As big as a bear, with a kind, boyish face and an elegant mind, Jens is a 45-year-old hunter from Qaanaaq, a village of about 650 people at latitude 77 degrees north whose brightly painted houses climb a hillside overlooking a fjord. Along with his brothers-in-law, Mamarut Kristiansen, Gedion Kristiansen, and Tobias Danielsen, who each has his own dog team and sled, he's heading toward the ice edge on Smith Sound to find walruses, as hunters have done for as long as memory. With 57 dogs to feed, as well as his extended family, he'll need to kill several walruses on this trip to bring home any meat.

Before leaving Qaanaaq, Jens had studied an ice chart faxed from the Danish Meteorological Institute. It showed vast areas of open water all the way to Siorapaluk, the northernmost indigenous village in the world. This was bad news for the hunters, who planned to travel on the "ice highway" for as long as a week. And it was a grim sign for the ecosystem as well, since it reflected the warming trend scientists call the polar amplification effect. During the past few decades temperatures have risen in Greenland by more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius)—twice the global average—and the island's massive ice sheet, almost two miles (3.2 kilometer) deep in some places, has been melting faster than at any time during the past 50 years. As the ice and snow cover melt, the Earth absorbs more heat—and sea levels rise everywhere.

Arctic biologists say that the entire ecosystem is in collapse. Without sea ice, seals can't build ledges on which to rest, eat, and bear their pups. Walruses can't find refuge on drift ice to rest and digest their meals of clams and other shellfish. Polar bears can't catch seals if there's no ice. And hunters like Jens can't travel in search of game.

"Huughuaq, huughuaq—get going, go faster!" Jens calls, encouraging his team. His sled is 13 feet (4 meters) long and 4 feet (1.2 meters) wide, pulled by 15 dogs in a fan hitch that lets them navigate the rough ice independently.

"These dogs are half wild," Jens says. "Maybe we are too. They have to be a little hungry to keep working for us, and we have to be hungry to keep going out with them."

The sled tips and tilts as the dogs scramble and bark. A fight breaks out, and Jens snaps a whip over their backs until they pick up speed. When a line in the fan hitch snags and a dog is dragged, Jens leans forward, without stopping, plucks at the tangle, and the dog's leg is released.

As we weave between stranded icebergs, Jens clamps his huge leg over mine and grabs my shoulder to keep me from falling off the sled. After one jolting bump, he raises his eyebrows to ask if I'm all right, then laughs when I nod yes. We've traveled together many times since 1996, when he first allowed me to accompany him on spring hunts for little auks, beluga whales, ringed seals, and walruses, so there's no need for words.

By the time the light fades about 11 p.m., we head toward shore and the hunters make camp on a rocky beach. Everyone's in high spirits. Where there had been open water a week earlier, now ice has congealed. Perhaps hunting will be good after all.

Dogs are unhitched and tied to notches cut in the ice. Sleds are unloaded. Two small canvas tents are put up using harpoon shafts as tent stakes. In each tent two sleds lined with reindeer skins serve as sleeping platforms. The floors are ice. An ancient Primus stove is lit. Overhead a sealskin thong is hung with sealskin boots, arctic hare socks, and a loaf of bread to be thawed. In a battered pot teetering over the flame, a spangled piece of glacier ice becomes water.

"Aurrit—walrus!" Jens sings out. "There will be many out there," Mamarut says, meaning a few miles out at the ice edge. The hunters prepare for an all-night hunt, changing out of fox-fur anoraks into ones made of lined canvas with polar bear fur at the wrists. Jens sharpens his knives as Gedion coils green harpoon lines. "We're going to the ice edge, the place where winter becomes spring," Jens says.

About midnight the fading sun is a red orb banging at the horizon. As darkness bleeds into it, the temperature plummets to minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 40 degrees Celsius). Night will be brief—in a few hours the sun will swing east again.

Harpoons in hand, the men line up single file and begin walking. Mamarut leads, Jens and the others follow, careful to place their feet into Mamarut's track. "The walruses can hear us moving over the ice, so we must make it sound like we are just one hunter," Jens whispers.

We walk for an hour in our silent Ice Age procession. These men are among the last hundred or so Greenland hunters who have chosen to keep their ancient traditions alive—traveling by dogsled, wearing skins, hunting with spears and harpoons, while taking what they want from the modern world, such as rifles. Their ancestors came to Greenland about 800 years ago, the most recent wave of peoples who migrated from Siberia beginning some 5,000 years ago.

"We hunt with harpoons, but we also use cell phones and watch TV," says Jens, who has testified before Greenland's Parliament to keep snowmobiles out of the far north. New ice—ice that has just refrozen—undulates like rubber beneath our feet. A slender channel of water appears, its crenellations catching and dropping the last of the sunlight. "The ice edge," Jens whispers. He points: "Miteq!" Two eider ducks fly out of a maze of sparkle.

Mamarut motions for us to stop. We hear gulping and sloshing: Walruses coming. They bob up and down, their ivory tusks gnawing frigid water. Mamarut breaks out of the procession, crouches, and runs ahead to the edge of the lead. We wait motionless. There's the whir of a harpoon, then a gunshot. The walrus is dead.

Harpoon lines are tied to long iron poles. A modern block and tackle is attached and the four men line up, hauling the young 800-pound (363-kilogram) male onto the ice hand over hand. Knives are resharpened. Penis and flippers are cut off. Heart and liver are laid on a tarp along with the other meat—food for both humans and dogs.

Jens walks back to camp and returns with a sled, his rolling side-to-side gait like that of a polar bear. He cuts a tangle of guts into long lengths and feeds the hungry dogs. The rest of the walrus is dismantled and stacked on the sled. Later he leans over a bloody mass on the snow—the stomach slit open—fishes around in the brown liquid with his knife, then stabs. A scallop! "Umm," he says, smiling, offering it to me. I shake my head. He pops the scallop in his mouth, chews, and swallows.

Before leaving, Mamarut lays two ribs and a pile of steaming intestines on the ice. "For nanoq," he says, the polar bear. "He is teaching us all the time. He can move on water or ice equally and hunt anything. He is worth our admiration. Without knowing the polar bear's ways, I would have died out here many times."

As the last of the meat is stacked, steaming, Jens hooks his dogs to the sled, and Mamarut stops to look skyward. "Sometimes we're lucky, and other times things go against us, and we don't get anything to eat," he says. "Our lives are based on how nature gives us animals."

March 21, the vernal equinox and our fourth day on the sea ice, a front moves in, and the temperature drops again from minus 35 to minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 37 to minus 40 degrees Celsius). "We need to go quickly before the storm hits," Jens warns. Rushing to load the sleds, the men kneel on flapping reindeer skins, pulling the lash ropes tight. The dogs are wild-eyed. The moment they feel the lines hitched to the sled, they take off. With flying leaps, the hunters barely make it aboard.

Out on the frozen sea the ice is smoother between wind-driven snowdrifts. We follow the mountainous coastline south toward the village of Moriusaq and the place the hunters call Walrus El Dorado near Appat Island, where last year they killed 13 walruses in just a few days. Ocean currents have squeezed and shattered plates of ice, and our sled comes to a halt. Stopped by the labyrinth, the dogs moan and cry. Which way do we go? Jens looks and shrugs, smiling. Then, using his enormous strength, lifts the front of the sled—freighted down by 800 pounds (363 kilograms) of meat and gear—until it points the other way. The dogs lurch forward, and Jens hops on as we bump through a narrow passage.

We travel for hours against a hard wind. It's too cold to stop and let the dogs rest, and the storm is coming in fast. Ice fog has lowered itself to the ground. We're headed for one of the wooden huts the hunters have built on the coastline for shelter during storms. A single pointed mountain protrudes through the fog. "Iviangeq!" Jens yells to Mamarut, whose sled comes alongside ours. He laughs and makes a cupping gesture to indicate a woman's breast. Ahead the roof of a tiny hut pokes from a snowdrift. The sled shudders as the dogs careen toward it onto land.

The traditional low entryway is dug out; shuttered windows are opened. Laughing, Gedion kicks the wall with his feet because there is no feeling in them. My hands are numb from the wrist forward. Two Primus stoves are lit, and Jens holds my fingers over the tiny flame.

In the old days there were no huts, no Primus stoves, and dogsleds were made from whale bones and reindeer antlers with frozen char rolled up as runners. The only heat and light was made from rendered whale and seal blubber.

Being out of food meant you were not only hungry but also cold.

We all cram into the 14-by-16-foot (4.3-by-4.9-meter) hut. Sleeping platforms line the walls. The floor is blood-encrusted from years of walrus and seal hunts. The men tend to the dogs before their own needs. The animals, tied one by one with long chains, howl with delight when they see the buckets of meat.

"Our dogs are like us, they love to eat. They're like running stomachs," Mamarut chimes in, throwing frozen chunks of walrus right into their mouths. Jens holds his big belly in his hands, grinning. He describes his 280-pound (127-kilogram) bulk as his "Eskimo bank account."

As the storm envelops us, the temperature slides to minus 60 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 51.1 degrees Celsius), but inside the hut, sitting leg to leg, we're snug. Snow covers the sleds; the dogs sleep outside with their noses under their tails. Using a thick steel needle and a thimble made of bearded sealskin, Mamarut repairs his sealskin boots with narwhal sinew thread. Jens plucks the hairs from his face with tweezers. "The hairs sticking out make your face freeze faster," he explains. He fixes a broken harpoon shaft. Our dinner is walrus heart soup, followed by slices of walrus fat to keep us warm. The windows rattle, and the blizzard comes on strong.

The next morning, the hut is quiet except for the hissing sound of the Primus and the howl of the wind. "It's important to be modest in front of the weather," Jens says, rubbing his cold-reddened cheeks. "If we go out in this, frostbite comes quickly, and you don't know it. This cold is like a bad dream, a ghost putting its hands on you."

On days like these, shamans gathered villagers around and conducted séances, rectifying the wrongs that had been committed and combing the long hair of the goddess Sassuma Arnaa to pacify her so she'd let the animals come to the hunters who needed food and skins. Now, that same kind of quiet intimacy fills our room. Some moments the men are playful—like small boys. Other times they tell hunting stories; not to boast, they say, but to learn from each other's mistakes.

The covenant between human and animals in the wild is always in mind. They hunt and are hunted. They listen and are heard. "Bears, walruses, whales, and seals are always listening to us, and we listen to them. They can understand what we are saying, and we go inside them each time we wear their skins," Jens explains.

Gedion recalls how a bearded seal almost dragged Jens through the ice. "The line cut down into his hand to the bone, and I sewed it up."

An elder took to walking between villages by going over the ice cap instead of along the shore. When he fell into a crevasse, the dogs found him; they had smelled him from miles away and led the villagers to him, saving the man's life. Searing cold, months of darkness, scarcity, and the risk of starvation are the flints on which their imaginations have been fired, triggering the intuition and intelligence—almost a second sight—still in evidence today. While the outward customs of ceremonial life have vanished, the inward ones remain.

There are long silences. We listen for bears. Tobias, who trained to be an engineer in Denmark then returned to his village to be a hunter again, recalls that this was the hut where he shot his first polar bear. "I did not know if I had killed it, and I stayed inside here all alone all night waiting for the bear to attack me. When nothing happened by morning, I knew he was dead."

Shutters bang in the wind. Everyone laughs. But when Jens begins talking, there is a reverent silence.

In an earlier era, before the Greenlanders' ceremonial life was discouraged by Scandinavian missionaries at the beginning of the 20th century, Jens might have been an angakkoq, a shaman.

His voice is low and gravelly: "When I was a boy, my father went out from the village and saw the track of a polar bear. He followed it and finally got very close. His chance to shoot came, but just then the bear turned and looked at him. It had a human face and was smiling at my father and saying, 'Take me. I'm yours!' My father just stood there. He couldn't shoot. He let the bear go. If a person has special talents, animals will come and ask to be your helper. You are only asked once by a polar bear, but my father denied it, and it ran away. He had his chance to get the powers. After that, I was afraid of having to meet that kind of polar bear.

"But not long ago it happened to me. Six of us were hunting walruses nearby, and we went up onto a hill to see if we could see the ice edge. Suddenly I started to feel as if there was a polar bear nearby. We were quite far from the dogs. I could hear it breathing. There were others with me, and they heard it too. It was very close, so close we thought we wouldn't be able to get away. We ran down the hill to get our guns. I could hear steps behind me. At the bottom the dogs were out of control. I cut the lead dogs loose, and they ran up the hill where we'd been. I followed with my gun, but there were no tracks. It was the polar bear coming for me. I still feel its spirit, mostly when the weather is changing, when a new season is on the way. Don't ask me where this comes from, but it has happened for generations." "Like now?" I ask cautiously. He only smiles.

After our three days in the hut, the storm ends. Jens peers out the window at a distant city of stranded icebergs, blunt-cut by a mirage—one of the first signs of spring. The temperature jumps from minus 60 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 51.1 degrees Celsius) to only minus 10 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 23.3 degrees Celsius). "It's hot," Jens complains, wiping his forehead. The ice is pink in morning light.

We pack the sleds and will make our way toward Walrus El Dorado. We're almost out of meat (a walrus goes fast with so many mouths to feed) and won't have any extra to bring back to Qaanaaq. A blustery wind comes up. "This will break the ice," Gedion says, matter-of-factly. As we make our way down the coast, then out into Baffin Bay, the ice is so broken and rotten we are forced to turn back before it breaks away. A sense of despair settles over the hunters.

"This changing weather is bad for us," Jens says, scowling. "Some people are having to go other ways to make a living." His wife, Ilaitsuk, who used to accompany him on these hunting trips, has had to take a job at a day care center in Qaanaaq to help pay their bills, which they both hate.

The hunters get off their sleds and talk. A decision is made: We will turn north again, then travel west to Kiatak Island, where, they say, the ice is always good. But to get there has become almost impossible. The shore ice around the headlands where we traveled the previous week is impassable. We're forced to go up and over a corner of the ice sheet. The way is steep, and a deep crevasse threatens to swallow our sleds. Lobes of translucent green ice bulge through snow. At the top we take air, flying off a cornice. Down the other side we follow a dry, narrow streambed, leaning from side to side for balance and using our feet to turn the sled. Despite the ropes laid under the runners, the sleds go too fast: Dogs slalom around boulders. We reach the bottom at midnight and are forced to go up the coast on rotting ice pans. Sometime toward morning, we make camp just inside a fjord.

The hunt for walrus has turned into a hunt for ice. We make our way west over bad ice with mist falling down the mountain cliffs. Between Kiatak and neighboring Qeqertarsuaq Island, there is no ice at all, and we must travel on the remains of an ice foot—a skirt of ice attached to the shore. Where the ice foot ends abruptly, the men belay their dogs and sled off a cliff, continuing to Kiatak on ice pans so rotten they dissolve into a layer of slush beneath the dogs' feet.

During the night, Mamarut's lead dog becomes ill. "Once they are like that they never get well," Gedion observes coolly. The next morning, before hitching up, Mamarut walks back up the hill and shoots his dog. "Now there will be a fight among my other dogs to see who will be the leader," Mamarut says, already thinking ahead.

But is there a future for these subsistence hunters of the far north? Everywhere in the Arctic, indigenous people are suffering. In Alaska the villages on the north coast are being inundated by the rising sea. In some Greenland villages last winter there was no sea ice at all. A few hunters in Qaanaaq and Moriusaq had to shoot some of their dogs because they had no meat for them.

Without sea ice, without sled dogs, without polar bears, marine mammals, and birds, traditional life in the Arctic could crumble quickly. "Once one piece of our life goes, it all goes," Jens says. "It is just like the ice. If it does not hold together, we cannot make any sense of our lives."

On the next to last day of our trip we emerge from our hut on the north side of Kiatak Island. Jens and Mamarut are boyishly cheerful, despite the disappointment of having no meat to bring home. They race each other up a steep snowfield. Because Kiatak lies farther west than any other land in Greenland, they're sure that, looking out over Baffin Bay toward Ellesmere Island, they'll see an ice edge sturdy enough to hold their dogsleds. This is where the walruses will be.

What they see astonishes them: There's no ice edge, only the glitter of open water all the way to Canada. Jens blinks, looks away to one side, then back out at the sea.

"In my whole life, and that of my father and grandfather, there has never been anything like this at this time of year. Without ice, we can't live. Without ice, we're nothing at all."

Sunday, 25 October 2009

Who Let the Dogs Out?

Must be the weather.

As we head toward yet another November, this one admittedly less politically momentous than the last, the nation’s two parties seem to be in presidential-campaign-style attack mode.

At Politico yesterday, Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen detailed the White House offensive.

President Obama is working systematically to marginalize the most powerful forces behind the Republican Party, setting loose top White House officials to undermine conservatives in the media, business and lobbying worlds.

With a series of private meetings and public taunts, the White House has targeted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the biggest-spending pro-business lobbying group in the country; Rush Limbaugh, the country’s most-listened-to conservative commentator; and now, with a new volley of combative rhetoric in recent days, the insurance industry, Wall Street executives and Fox News.

Obama aides are using their powerful White House platform, combined with techniques honed in the 2008 campaign, to cast some of the most powerful adversaries as out of the mainstream and their criticism as unworthy of serious discussion.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs has mocked Limbaugh from the White House press room podium. White House aides limited access to the Chamber and made top adviser Valerie Jarrett available to reporters to disparage the group. Everyone from White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has piled on Fox News by contending it’s not a legitimate news operation.

(See Eric Etheridge’s Monday Opinionator column for more on the White House and Fox News.)

That’s an impressive-sounding search-and-destroy mission and it is bound to have some impact, but like Terminators who keep reassembling and coming at you right after you could have sworn you’d blown them to bits, two noteworthy Republicans materialized to fire volleys at the president and his policies.

On Wednesday night, Dick Cheney, accepting a “Keeper of the Flame Award” from the Center for Security Policy, gave a speech that was a essentially a point-by-point attack on everything Obama, from the withdrawal of missiles from Eastern Europe to his record on the issue of the day, Afghanistan. In a speech chock full of characteristically inflammatory rhetoric (“We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys,” was a morning-after favorite), Cheney described the White House as “dithering” on the war.

Well, that did it.

Robert Gibbs, the White House Press secretary countered today: “What Vice President Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform. I think we’ve all seen what happens when somebody doesn’t take that responsibility seriously.”

Gibbs drew much attention today for his snarky responses to Cheney’s speech, giving the heretofore unfathomable impression that someone was picking on Dick Cheney.
Weekend Opinionator: Are Americans Cooling on Global Warming?
By Tobin Harshaw

Americans are worried about global warming. We know this for many reasons. We know it because “An Inconvenient Truth” won an Oscar; because Al Gore’s popularity has soared since he left the vice presidency; because the House and Senate are working feverishly on laws to limit greenhouse-gas emissions; and mostly because there are so many books from skeptics accusing environmentalists of having completely snookered the American public.

Democrats begin a push on cap-and-trade laws just as a new poll shows a sharp decline in fears of rising temperatures.

Need more proof? Take it from the very top — President Obama, Friday at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: “There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy — when it’s the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs. There are going to be those who cynically claim — make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary.”

What about them? “We are seeing a convergence. The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized.”

Hmmm, for people being marginalized by a consensus, there suddenly seem to be a whole lot of them, at least according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:

There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem – 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008 …

Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.

The decline in the belief in solid evidence of global warming has come across the political spectrum, but has been particularly pronounced among independents. Just 53% of independents now see solid evidence of global warming, compared with 75% who did so in April 2008. Republicans, who already were highly skeptical of the evidence of global warming, have become even more so: just 35% of Republicans now see solid evidence of rising global temperatures, down from 49% in 2008 and 62% in 2007. Fewer Democrats also express this view – 75% today compared with 83% last year.

Cue the rejoicing on the right. Here’s John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

That 36 percent is pretty remarkable, given the massive propaganda effort that has been mounted over a period of decades by the big-government side. It suggests that the public is becoming more knowledgeable about climate science …

A rational citizen, confronted with the current economy and the Democrats’ plan to impoverish us all with a multi-trillion-dollar tax on energy, would take a hard look at the evidence to see whether anthropogenic global warming is a) a reality, or b) a hoax ginned up to justify a massive federal government takeover of the economy that will shift trillions of dollars from ordinary citizens to the federal coffers and to companies and organizations with close ties to the Democratic Party. A lot of rational citizens are concluding that the right answer is b).

Still, there are plenty of grievances, and for Hinderaker they stem from something Andrew Weaver, a professor of climate analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said to Dina Cappiello of the Associated Press: “It’s a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate and a full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public.”

“Actually,” responds Hinderaker, the ‘lobby groups’ are nearly all on the other side. I’ve seen no reliable statistics, but would guess that more than 90 percent of the money in the global warming game is pro-AGW. The federal government alone has parceled out billions of dollars to “scientists” who are willing to toe the party line. Add to that the public schools, virtually every newspaper, all of the television networks and the Associated Press, and it is something of a miracle that so many Americans have been able to figure out that they are being lied to. It’s almost enough to restore your faith in democracy.”

Vox Day, the blogger at Vox Popoli, anticipates the left-wing response:

Brainwashing and appeals to scientific authority only go so far when Joe Public’s car is buried by snow in early October. No doubt the true believing scientific community will respond with calm reason and logical persuasion, by which of course I mean that we can look forward to the usual suspects shrieking about how stupid everyone is for daring to think for themselves and wistfully dreaming of PhDoctocracy.

“Not everything in the poll is bad news for those that favor capping U.S. emissions,” notes The Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Power. He explains:

According to the survey, a majority (56%) of Americans think the United States should join other countries in setting standards to address global climate change, while 32% say that the United States should set its own standards. And half of Americans favor setting limits on carbon emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if this may lead to higher energy prices.

On the other hand, more than half (55%) say they haven’t heard about so-called “cap and trade” legislation being considered in Congress. (Then again, Sen. John Kerry says he doesn’t know what “cap and trade” means, either.)

This paradox leads Meredith Jessup at TownHall to accuse Republicans of failing to take advantage of the shifting public attitudes:

With all this growing skepticism about global warming, you’d think support for cap-and-trade would drop. Not on Capitol Hill!

And despite the number of Americans who doubt the influence of global warming, for some reason half of the country still favors setting limits on carbon emissions, even though it will result in drastically higher energy prices. This phenomenon seems to be due to lack of knowledge of the issue:

Just 14% say they have heard a lot about the so-called “cap and trade” policy that would set carbon dioxide emissions limits; another 30% say they have heard a little about the policy, while a majority (55%) has heard nothing at all. The small minority that has heard a lot about the issue opposes carbon emissions limits by two-to-one (64% to 32%).

Hopefully the RNC reads these numbers and takes away this important lesson: knowledge is power when it comes to cap-and-trade.

Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, whose writing often incurs the wrath of environmentalists, thinks there is a clear political message here for environmentalists:

Remarkably, only liberal Democrats have shown an increase in concern on the issue, as shown below. meanwhile, it has become of diminishing seriousness for just about every other group of Democrats. What this means is that continued efforts to intensify concern over global warming could have the effect of turning this issue into a being perceived solely as a liberal cause (more so than it is already perceived to be) and alienate the rest of the voting populace, the vast majority of which do not consider themselves to be liberal Democrats.

One reason to stop focusing on what people think about the science of climate change is that a majority of the public supports action on emissions (shown below) and well as international cooperation on climate change (not shown). The policy challenge is thus to design policies that can be effective given the strong political support that has existed on this topic for some time. The realities are that support is about as strong as it is likely to be, and really hasn’t changed much over a decade or longer. Efforts to make climate change a top line issue will inevitably backfire. For some these facts may be frustrationg, but they are the reality of the issue.

Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress feels that Pew erred in saying the decline is “across party lines.” “But you should look at the magnitudes,” he explains, “the Republican line has fallen way further, and from a lower base, than the Democratic line. This is probably a rationalizing voter example where increased salience of the issue is bringing more Republicans into line with the beliefs espoused by their party’s leaders.”

Yglesias also takes issue with this comment form Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma: The more Americans learn about cap-and-trade, the more they oppose cap-and-trade. And this explains quite clearly why Democrats don’t want the public to know about it.” The blogger’s reply: “These are curious uses of the terms “know” and “learn” which are generally reserved for instances in which people form true beliefs. On the specific issue of cap and trade, the evidence has always been that the term “cap and trade” is barely in circulation outside the Beltway. Public support for clean energy legislation under different descriptions tends to be high. You can get poll results as good at 72 percent in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act under one favorable description.”

Cappiello, the Associated Press writer, also talked to a global-warming die-hard who seems to think denial is the appropriate response:

Since 1997, the percentage of Americans that believe the Earth is heating up has remained constant — at around 80 percent — in polling done by Jon Krosnick of Stanford University. Krosnick, who has been conducting surveys on attitudes about global warming since 1993 was surprised by the Pew results.

He described the decline in the Pew results as “implausible,” saying there is nothing that could have caused it.

Well, plausible or not, it can hardly be said that the new study is a total outlier — consider this conversation with Gallup’s Frank Newport that U.S. News’s Paul Bedard recounted in May:

He admits that it’s counterintuitive, but Gallup Poll Editor Frank Newport says he sees no evidence that Al Gore’s campaign against global warming is winning. “It’s just not caught on,” says Newport. “They have failed.” Or, more bluntly: “Any measure that we look at shows Al Gore’s losing at the moment. The public is just not that concerned.” What the public is worried about: the economy. Newport says the economy trumps the environment right now, a strong indicator that President Obama’s bid to put a cap-and-trade pollution regime into operation isn’t likely to be politically popular.

That’s not to say people aren’t passionate about the issue. But it’s the direction of their passion that will disappoint Gore. Newport says that some 41 percent believe global warming claims are exaggerated, and “that’s the highest we’ve seen.” Ask people to name their biggest concerns, and just 1 percent to 2 percent cite the environment. “The environment doesn’t show up at all,” says Newport.

“It’s Al Gore’s greatest frustration,” says Newport. “We seem less concerned than more about global warming over the years. . . . Despite the movies and publicity and all that, we’re just not seeing it take off with the American public. And that was occurring even before the latest economic recession.”

He adds: “As Al Gore I think would say, the greatest challenge facing humanity . . . has failed to show up in our data.”

Jim Hoggan of desmogblog.com is pretty sure that the sheep are being led astray by the usual big-money suspects:

As I explained to the Guardian newspaper today, “a big part of this problem is this campaign to mislead Americans about climate science. This is a very sophisticated group of people who know how to create doubt and confusion and they have done a very good job of it.”
This downturn in public understanding of the climate crisis confirms that the corporate investment in climate confusion is paying a dividend. The public confusion campaigns launched by ACCCE, the Chamber, National Association of Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute and a host of others, are all deliberately targeted at moving the dial on public opinion.

These Astroturf groups have set a clear and specific goal of muddying the waters, and this poll shows that their strategy is working. Front groups and lobbyists for dirty industry have effectively sown the seeds of confusion within the American public.

Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, the pleadings of nation’s like the Maldives and villages in the Arctic which are literally being wiped off the map by rising sea levels, and siren calls from the international community for action to address climate change, Americans are still questioning whether it is real or not.

Shocking, isn’t it? Not if you know what the industry lobbyists and front groups have been up to for the past 20 years.

Tom Yulsman at the Center for Environmental Journalism’s blog looks at the numbers a bit more closely and doesn’t like what he sees:

In the Pew poll, 85 percent of people said they had heard only a little or nothing at all about the cap-and-trade policy now being considered in Congress to tackle global warming. And in what may be an ominous development for Democrats pushing cap-and-trade plans in Congress, it seems that public support for the policy seems to be built on extremely shaky ground. That support is actually correlated with lack of knowledge about the policy’s details, with more than 50 percent of those who know little or nothing about them saying they favor a cap on emissions of greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, the small minority of people who have heard a lot about capping emissions actually oppose the policy by a two-to-one margin.

This can mean a number of things. One possibility is that those most inclined to dislike government action on global warming are the ones most likely to have sought out details about cap-and-trade. Another is simply that the more Americans know about the policy, the less they like it.

Or, as Truthdig’s PZS would have it, perhaps it means that Americans are simply idiots:

In just three short years, Americans have gotten 20 points dumber. That’s if you count a belief in the climate crisis, and the mounting science behind it, as a sign of brains.

Blame the people who popularized global warming as a phrase. The ice caps may be melting and half of California has been on fire, but if it’s a relatively cool summer, everyone’s a skeptic.

To be fair to the land of the free and home of the creationists, most of us still believe there’s “solid evidence that the earth is warming,” but that number was much higher, 77 percent, in 2006. Whatever you’re doing, Al Gore, it isn’t working. Step on it.

Well, it sounds like PZA would be right at home “PhDoctocracy” posited by Vox Day.

For those of us in the real world, however, it seems like talk may soon turn into action (or inaction). Beyond the Obama speech, here are some signs that we aren’t so befuddled by the economy as to have forgotten the climate:
the impending release of the Senate’s newest version of its climate bill, on which the Environment and Public Works committee is to hold hearings next week; the Environmental Protection Agency’s new report on the cost of such legislation; the decision by Creigh Deeds, the struggling Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, to dump cap-and-trade; and the fact that Ed Markey, the House Democrat leading the charge for the legislation, is off to Copenhagen to lay the groundwork for the international summit meeting in December. Not that this issue, 4.5 billion years in the making, is going to be resolved overnight, but it would seem to be time for that majority of Americans who responded that they knew “nothing” about cap-and-trade to think about picking a side.

Note: Those who know and love the blogosphere well are probably aware that there were two major Web brouhahas this week involving global warming claims; as both involved parties affiliated with The Times, I chose not to discuss them, as to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. If however, you want to catch up, one involved Rush Limbaugh (him again) and Times reporter Andrew C. Revkin (see here and here); the other pitted Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner of my sister blog Freakonomics against enviro-blogger Joe Romm, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the economist J. Bradford DeLong (see here and here and here and here and here).

Thursday, 15 October 2009

There's no denying global warming, center says

When Dow Constantine's campaign called the Washington Policy Center's environmental arm, the Center for the Environment, global warming "deniers" the group was upset I didn't contact them for comment.

Fair point.

Todd Myers, the WPC's environmental director, said contrary to what Constantine's campaign said his organization "believes global warming is happening, people are having an influence and that carbon dioxide emissions" are the cause.

"We don't agree with some of the alarmists with how much that is going to go up," Myers said.

Myers said his organization wants to cut taxes elsewhere but to increase taxes on carbon as a way to reduce emissions.

"(The Constantine campaign) either ignored or didn't read the chapter that said we think there should be a carbon tax," Myers said.

Myers pointed to a speech he gave last week at which he outlined his position (a question about global warming starts at 1:24:00).

Global Warming is a National Security Issue

Congress is currently debating legislation that would finally begin to address climate change and spark a paradigm shift toward clean energy for our nation. There are lots of good reasons to pass this bill: reducing global warming pollution, exerting international leadership on the issue, boosting the economy with nearly million new "green" jobs, breaking our addiction to oil and other dirty fossil fuels. One of the most important reasons for acting now has to do with bolstering our nation's security. This story by inside-the-Beltway publication Politico makes the point:


"[F]or nearly two years, military and intelligence experts have been issuing studies warning that climate change could put American military personnel and national security at risk. Increasingly violent storms, pandemics, drought and large-scale refugee problems, they say, will destabilize regions and encourage terrorism. And American dependence on foreign energy sources will only exacerbate the threats and increase the likelihood of military action."


That's a big reason why Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both military veterans, are working together to pass a climate and clean energy bill in the Senate. (This development is a game-changer, notes my colleague Dan Lashof.)


This also explains why national security experts and military veterans of all political stripes are banding together to ensure that Congress follows through on the mission. Right now, in fact, a squad of vets is on the road, traversing the country on a 21-state, biodiesel-fueled bus tour -- they are stopping in cities and towns all over America to explain to people how our national security is tied to tackling the climate crisis.


Learn more about the Veterans for American Power Tour on this website, which tracks both buses as they roll through various states over the next two weeks.


The coalition behind this campaign, which includes Operation Free, the Truman National Security Project, and VoteVets, is also promoting the cause through a radio ad blitz in several states. The ads feature veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan calling for an "American clean energy policy" and urging Senators to be "heroes" by supporting climate legislation. The tag-line: "It's not just a question of American energy; it's a question of American power."