Archive for the 'Climate Change' Category

Newsweek: Global Warming Denial Industry Exposed

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on August 7, 2007
in Climate Change, Global Warming and newsweek
. 4 Comments

If you haven’t read George Monbiot’s Heat yet, you need to check out this week’s Newsweek. In this week’s edition, the news periodical does an excellent job exposing the shameful, yet intricate workings of the global warming denial industry. Click here to read the article.

This is significant, because as far as I know, this is the most mainstream and widely circulated piece of literature to date breaking down the tactics of climate change naysayers.

The article does a good job naming names, connecting the dots, and following the money trail. Let’s hope this wakes up politicians and the general public, because we cannot afford to be paralyzed by pseudoscience while the world becomes increasingly destabilized by climate change.

Though I highly recommend reading this Newsweek piece in its entirety, regardless of how you feel about climate change, I’ve summarized some major tactics used by naysayers below, as mentioned in the article:

  • Exxon Mobile, the world’s most profitable corporation, has been paying “scientists” $10,000 to write articles undercutting peer-reviewed climate change reports.
  • The deniers have been employing similar tactics used by the tobacco industry, such as relying on the notion that there is too much “scientific uncertainty”; to do this, they regularly print white papers and “studies” (not empirical research, but critiques of others’ work).
  • Former employers from the coal/oil industries landing high-ranking government jobs related to environmental action, largely resulting from connections with Washington conservatives who feel action taken to fight global warming will harm business (and thus, those lining their campaign pockets), have been avoiding action, and even editing the research and reports of top climate scientists to portray “scientific uncertainty”.
  • Constantly changing their story; for example, first they claimed the “world is not warming”, then they claimed warming was occurring, but that it was natural instead of anthropogenic (caused by humans). Now, their most recent claim is that the world is warming, but the effects will be small and harmless.
  • Their main goal is not to argue global warming is good, or even neutral, but to create doubt among politicians and the general public that it poses a serious threat to global stability. This, they hope, will keep us from achieving the consensus and support necessary to act.
  • Making up “think tanks” and disguising them with names like “The Global Climate Coalition” and “Information Council on the Environment” (aka ICE - a not so subtle acronym).
  • The use of lists and petitions that aim to portray climate science as divided; funny thing is these “petitions” are mostly signed by a motley crew of folks who’ve never done any real climate research.

Though the Newsweek piece does a solid job exposing the global warming denial industry, I still recommend Monbiot’s book, Heat. He does an even better, more comprehensive job articulating how the denial industry functions.

TransitMiami Must Read - Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on July 8, 2007
in Climate Change, George Monbiot and Global Warming
. 0 Comments
In the wake of the Live Earth concerts on Saturday, I want to take a moment to recommend a powerful book addressing climate change and what it will take to beat it.

In the book, titled Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning, by popular columnist for the UK’s Guardian newspaper, George Monbiot, it is stated we must cut carbon dioxide emissions by 90% by 2030 in order to avoid reaching a catastrophic tipping point.

To read a good review by Streetsblog writer Aaron Donovan, click here.

There is also an excellent interview of Monbiot on YouTube, where he discusses elements from his book as well as some very well articulated insight on climate change.

One of the many moments during the interview that stood out to me was Mobiot’s outlook regarding Africa and food a few decades from now. According to Monbiot, climate change as we currently know it has initiated a process leading to net global drying, which will be especially pronounced in Africa. In turn, this could lead to crop failures, ultimately creating a global food deficit as population continues to grow by the billions.

“It is beyond my powers of description to tell you what a world of 9 billion people in net food deficit would look like. It makes all previous human crises - wars, acts of genocide, famines, plagues - look like a side show at the circus of human suffering.”

To see Part 1 of the interview, click here.

I highly recommend watching these interviews, at a minimum. The book will knock your socks off, and hopefully it will get you thinking about and comprehending the issue of climate change and the urgent action we must take. Perhaps the best thing about this book, though, is that you come away feeling energized by the “can do” tone of the book, instead of demoralized by the defeatist tone that many previous climate change books have emanated.

Click here to buy the book on Amazon.com

Climate Change News

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on July 3, 2007
in Antarctic, Chile, Climate Change and Global Warming
. 0 Comments

Herald: Global warming blamed for vanishing lake

Can Working Less Fight Global Warming?

Published
by
Ryan Sharp
on June 27, 2007
in Climate Change, Employment and Global Warming
. 2 Comments
Given the urgent action that must be taken to fight climate change, it is important to be searching for ways to cut our harmful emissions. One particularly simple, yet important area that has not received much attention thus far is work hours. Is it possible that we could curb our emissions significantly just by working a few less hours per week?
According to a study led by Harvard economics professor Mark Weisbrot, it’s very possible. The study, conducted for the Center of Economic and Policy Research and titled Are Shorter Work Hours Good for the Environment?, claims that if Americans adopted European standards for work hours, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2000 would have been 7% lower than its actual 1990 emissions. This assumes U.S. workers would average 35 hours of work per week, as is typical throughout much of Europe.

Not only would this help the world’s worst global warming offender curb its emissions, it would provide workers with the equivalent of seven weeks of additional time off per year. This is time that could be spent with families, friends, relaxing, or even getting more sleep. Sound unrealistic? A survey issued by the Center for the New American Dream found that half of all Americans with full-time jobs would prefer to work a four-day week at 80% of their current pay.

Perhaps even scarier, though, is if the inverse were to occur. According to the study, if Europe was to move in a new direction and adopt the American standard of work hours, it could consume 25-30% more energy per year. However, this isn’t just a US vs. Europe issue. As the economies of developing countries grow, they will almost certainly move in a direction to adopt either the American or European standards for work hours. If these countries were to choose the American standard, they would likely consume between 15% and 30% more energy than if they had adopted the European standard. What’s the significance? All the extra carbon emissions could result in a devastating 1-2 degrees Celsius of additional warming.

Considering that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80-90% this century, changing the American standard of work hours deserves some serious consideration. Perhaps at a minimum, we should be given a choice of whether we want to to take an “hour cut” or not, as is argued by the Preservation Institute.