It's About Responsibility

for our friends and family and neighbors, across the street and across the world, and for this home we all share. Responsibility for the necessities for a good life: clean air, clean water, and a healthy place to live, for us and for the myriad living things we share this planet with. Responsibility for present generations and future, responsibility to properly train and equip those who dedicate their lives to serving and protecting us, responsibility to create an affordable and attainable path to educate or train each individual toward the vocation they were born to. Responsibility to be guided by our science and by our hearts, responsibility for our poorest and weakest, in the morals and values with which we raise our children. Responsibility for everyone from the moment of conception, but responsibility in our choices so that everyone conceived will have someone to love and care for them so that they will not have to struggle for food or shelter. Responsibility for all who are sick, so that they will not have to choose between health and home, and for those who provide our care so that they have the tools and equipment they need, and are justly compensated for their dedication to our well being. Responsibility to enable those who want to create things that will better society and enrich our lives, but also to create and enforce the laws that make sure they do so without harm to us and this one fragile planet we all share.

Responsibility is the common thread so these should not be mutually exclusive, but somehow, in our two party system, it seems they are taken that way, and so yet again my vote is for "none of the above."

Trump Attacks NEPA

Trump's latest attack in his anti-environment salvo is aimed at The National Environmental Policy Act, a cornerstone of environmental legislation. Here is my submitted comment on the proposed rule change:

This proposal to “streamline” the NEPA process was created either by individuals who are completely ignorant of the complexities of science and the environment, or, more nefariously, those who value short term monetary gains and the well-being of corporations and moneyed interests above all else. With our ever increasing but still very limited knowledge of the intricacies and interactions within an ecosystem, accelerating the decision making process to permanently transform a natural system with the goal of making “the process more predictable and efficient” (per the CEQ chairman) is reckless and simple minded. I have spent many years performing environmental field work and can tell you that what is predictable about looking at a piece of land on a map is limited. However, what is predictable are the negative long term consequences to our nation and the planet as a whole from hasty and poor decisions allowing for a multitude of projects destructive to our environment. The decisions we make concerning the quality of our natural resources and transformations of our environment and the increasingly limited natural places on our planet are critical and will have long lasting, if not permanent effects on us and future generations. They should, therefore, be conducted with as much caution and thoroughness as is necessary.

EPA Clean Water ACT Proposal Discounts It's Own Science

The Trump appointee led EPA is proposing changes to the definition of "Waters of The US" that will eliminate large areas of aquatic habitat vital to flood control, water dependent plant and animal species, and protection of clean water. Here is my comment letter to the proposed regulation changes. Commentswill be accepted through April 15th here:

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0149-0003

It’s outrageous that our own EPA would attempt to reduce protection on something as vital and increasingly threatened as clean water. We should leave science to the scientists when it comes to protection and management of such a critical resource. Environmental science is different from business, there is no simple “one size fits all” box for every situation, no matter how much the moneyed interests from certain industries would like to convince us of this. The “surface connection” that the EPA proposal would like to put so much stock in as a sacrosanct boundary for “Waters of the US” is absolutely meaningless in terms of water quality, and in terms of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of stream and wetland systems. Anyone who’s made coffee or tea has experienced how water flowing through something, (including soil) is affected by the substance it flows through. I would much rather have my drinking water filtered by natural soils than collected from streets and commercial and industrial parking lots. Most water dependent plants and animals don’t care whether or not the piece of water they inhabit is connected to others via surface or underground water. I am an aquatic scientist with over 30 years of experience in the field, working in the west and the southeastern US, and a study I participated in ( http://www.northinlet.sc.edu/training/media/2011/06142011isolatedwetlands/resources/seiwa_final_report.pdf ) clearly showed the importance of the connection between isolated wetlands and surrounding waters. In the west and in the southeast even perennial streams may flow underground for a distance when they encounter very porous soils or other conditions, but that does not diminish the importance of the aquatic ecosystem and the water filtering and flood buffering capacity of the section above the underground portion in any way. In the west, where rainfall is seasonal and sporadic, ephemeral streams and wetlands are vital to many species, and research conducted by the EPA itself demonstrates their importance to water quality ( https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/ephemeral_streams_report_final_508-kepner.pdf ). We must not let an influential few choreograph the sacrifice of a resource so vital to ourselves and to future generations for their own avaricious and short sighted interests.

The Creative Science of Natural Disaster

Trump's tweet today about the California fires "gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!" highlights his ignorance towards and bias against the environment. "Forests" in California are not like the forests of the eastern US, they are designed to burn every few years in a way that maintains the understory from becoming too overgrown and allows renewal and germination of seedlings and other plants. Northern California has what looks like a forest he might be familiar with from pictures and mountain resort areas, however even these are adapted to burn in the hot and dry Mediterranean climate. Coastal southern California mountains are different. They are covered by chaparral and other vegetation adapted to dry climates that is even more fire adapted. As construction has increased in these areas, suppression of the natural fire ecology has as well, so the vegetation that is naturally maintained at a low level becomes a great stockpile of flammable material that becomes more dangerous as man-made inputs of carbon dioxide increases temperatures and drought frequency and duration in the state. When the natural and perhaps more frequent due to climate change Santa Ana wind conditions occur, as they inevitably do, it takes the slightest ignition to create an inferno now. How do we "remedy" this, as the president demands? This can happen only by undoing stupid and purely profit motivated decisions that allow our summers to become hotter, longer, (and drier in California and other places) and by curtailing development in areas which are predictably prone and naturally adapted to burning every few years. As a land developer, our president has no sense of the tremendous responsibility he and those who share his very limited knowledge of how the natural world works have in turning naturally adapted ecosystems into disaster areas. Those who lose lives and property on coastal barrier islands and other coastal areas in developed hurricane prone regions share the same cost to life and property of legislation kowtowing to the profit interests of an ignorant and self concerned privileged few.

Endangered Species Act Under Attack

The current administration continues its war against science and environment by proposing nefarious amendments that favor business and industry at the expense of our planet. Apparently, the damage will be done in "death by a thousand cuts" method in which the dismantling will be couched in innocuous sounding language.

Please submit comments opposing this weakening of the law that has saved many species from extinction since its enactment:

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_ESA/regulation-revisions.html

Here is my submittal:

The proposed amendments to the Endangered Species Act are in no way beneficial to threatened and endangered species but are in many ways beneficial to resource extracting corporations, developers, and large scale agribusiness.  The Act has been effective in the protection and recovery of species pushed to the brink of extinction by human activities for the 45 years since it was enacted, and it is apparent that the impetus for the proposed changes to such a successful program are demands, or at the very least kowtowing, to moneyed interests.

The proposal to remove the phrase, “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination” and the proposal to eliminate defined protection for species classified as “threatened” create the opportunity for subjective political and corporate influenced opinion to replace good science in the decision making process, which is not likely to improve the outcome for species close to extinction. 

Imposing additional restrictions on designation of critical habitat likewise will not benefit species protection and recovery in any way, but will benefit developers and resource extraction industries. 

Limiting the definition and allowing discretionary use of the term “foreseeable future”  so that even science as clearly recognized internationally as that of climate change cannot be considered in the decision making process will clearly hinder the ability of scientists to make appropriate decisions. 

The proposed removal of requirements for federal agencies to consult with scientists and wildlife agencies before approving large projects including oil and gas drilling and large scale logging under the guise of “improving efficiency” shows blatant skew of the profit motive in these proposed changes to the ESA and clear disregard for its very spirit.

The Endangered Species Act was created by citizens who recognized the responsibility we have to impart future generations with a planet healthy enough to provide for their well-being, and to preserve the wondrous biodiversity bestowed on us, and not to sell their inheritance for the short term profit of the few.

Further Information:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2018/07/19/endangered-species-act-stripped-of-key-provisions-in-trump-administration-proposal/?utm_term=.5f740d14a24a

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-trump-administration-takes-on-the-endangered-species-act

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/trump-administration-proposes-endangered-species-act-overhaul-could-shrink-critical

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/16/639149685/illinois-sues-trump-tower-over-river-violations

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/20/17594908/endangered-species-act-trump-proposal-change-weaken

https://blog.humanesociety.org/2018/07/breaking-trump-administration-proposes-new-changes-to-weaken-endangered-species-act.html

Natural Fertilizer Proves Itself

As I was enjoying kumquats from the potted tree I planted some seven years ago I remembered a story I read recently about how a barren pasture was transformed into a lush native forest landscape by the addition of tons of agricultural discards, in this case orange peels and rinds. I have several potted citrus tree and two pots with 3 large pineapple plants each. I've maintained all of these for many years and have never added soil, insecticide, or man made fertilizer to them, yet all remain very healthy and productive. If you look closely at the bottom photo you can see what I do feed them, leftover vegetable matter: citrus rinds, banana peels, strawberry tops, wilting lettuce, pretty much anything vegetable. That along with crushed egg shell and the nutrients from my fish tanks from occasional water changes are all that have fed these productive fruit trees for years.

I have described in previous posts how production of man-made fertilizers is an energy intensive process, and how excess ammonia and phosphorus from fertilizer is harming our waterways, our oceans, and our health. This spring I will commence the second growing season in the garden at my new house utilizing Masanobu Fukuoka's methods. I believe our best chance for a healthy planet with our expanding population lies in weaning ourselves from the easy and addictive fixes like fertilizers and looking to research on sustainable methods that are based on the natural cycles of life.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/08/22/orange-new-green-how-orange-peels-revived-costa-rican-forest

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-3/Fertilizer.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2935130/

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/yuan2/

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/chemical-inputs/fertilizer-use-markets/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fertilizer-runoff-overwhelms-streams/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fertilizers-harm-earth/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/nitrogen-fertilizers-climate-change-pollution-waterways-global-warming.html

https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19772702493

http://www.appropedia.org/images/d/d3/Onestraw.pdf

On The Science of Climate

I am, by nature and by training, a scientist, therefore I know that facts remain facts whether or not we like them or they conform to our plans.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/12/11/569907969/sciences-journey-from-data-to-truth

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/03/trump-administration-releases-report-finds-no-convincing-alternative-explanation-for-climate-change/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_climate-215pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.cb332acc6493

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/12/570119468/arctics-temperature-continues-to-run-hot-latest-report-card-shows

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171108155504.htm

Deregulation and Clean Water

I received an email notice from Forester Network the other day letting me know that a much shortened comment period (30 day instead of the typical 90 day) had begun for proposed changes to definitions in the Clean Water Act. ( http://foresternetwork.com/daily/soil/erosion-control/waters-of-the-us-nows-our-chance-to-be-heard/?mqsc=E3902550&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=Forester%20FullForester%20Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=FDN-08072017-Waste )

This was the first shot I was aware of in a key battle against environmental regulation in a field I am very familiar with, streams and wetlands. My adrenaline was pumping and in my haste to fire back against deregulation proponents I skimmed the article and went straight to the link ( https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0203-0001 ) where I typed with fury against the promised assault on clean water and the environment. In short time I pressed send and felt the release of knowing I had done something to let the government know that some people realize there are more important things than short term profit My first letter read "I am a scientist with an M.S. in Conservation Biology and over 20 years of experience working in streams and wetlands in positions with employers including a utlity district/water provider, various environmental consultants performing stream and wetland and fisheries work, a major university as a wetland and water quality researcher, and a local government as an environmental specialist. In all of these positions I have spent countless hours in field work covering many acres and miles of stream and wetlands throughout California, in Massachusttes, and in 6 southeastern states, with an eye towards the ecology and water quality effects of and to these systems. My research and field observations has led me to the undeniable conclusion that the only way to safeguard our water supply now and for future generations is to protect what is still left from further degradation. Protecting large wetland and river systems is of course important, but we cannot underestimate the vital utility of even the smallest headwater stream and wetland systems that probably far outnumber large rivers in miles of stream. These are the true sources of our clean water, the first filters that will shape the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a stream system. To cut these off is like cutting off our fingers and expecting the arm to still perform all the critical functions of the missing digits. We cannot allow short term profit and interests to override vital protections of our water supply for our society, current and future. What is lost now will be impossible to replace in the future. The current Clean Water Rule, with its current definition of Waters of the US, is something determined by very knowledgable scientists who have studied and deliberated this for many years, and, as I would trust a doctor to cure my illness or a mechanic to fix my engine, I trust much more with a decision so critical to our future than politicians, bureaucrats, and developers with obvious agendas and biases."

It was only that night when I read the article and the docket more carefully that I realized that in my haste to respond I missed the mark on responding to what is being challenged in this proposed regulation change, definitions of waters of the US. I slept on it and in the morning another comment letter came quickly from my fingers "I have spent many years as a consultant, regulator, and researcher performing lab and field work in streams and wetlands throughout the southeastern US and in California. My studies have invariably demonstrated the importance of peripheral aquatic systems such as headwater stream systems, including intermittent and sometimes ephemeral streams, and fringing wetlands, including floodplain and so-called "isolated wetlands" to flood control and pollution filtration. One study I participated in, entitled "Hydrologic Connectivity, Water Quality Function, and Biocriteria of Coastal Plain Geographically Isolated Wetlands" ( https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Water%20Quality/Surface%20Water%20Protection/PDU/Grant%20Final%20Reports/IWC%20Final%20Report%20vs02-19-2013-FINAL.pdf ) clearly demonstrates that the "significant nexus via surface connection" is a human construct and not a true scientific demarcation when it comes to calculating pollution removal from a stream system. To truly protect our most important resource, clean water, for future generations we should expand, not contract the definition of waters of the US to include these so-called isolated wetlands, which are, in fact, critically linked to surface waters."

The comment period ends on August 28th. Please write even the shortest note to show support for maintaining the current definitions of "Waters of the US"

If You Can't Stand The Heat....

or flood, or drought, then what are your options?

This question occurred to me, among other times, this July as I was moving to a new house within the city of Columbia, SC. I was lying exhausted on the parched lawn of the house we were moving from, having just completed the second full load of the largest truck UHaul rents and hoping darkening skies would provide rain to cool me on yet another hundred degree day. As with each of the five moves I've made since moving to the southeast it occurred in the middle of summer, and though we are not a family of hoarders we had furniture to fill a four bedroom house and then some, and a generous amount of necessities and indispensable non necessities collected over the years. Most of these moves were spaced out in time so that I had a general recollection of sweat and unpleasantness from the previous one, but then I recalled that eventually it was completed and so the next one must be endurable. This time, however, the move happened to fall during the warmest July on record in this already infamously hot city, and so truly tested my limits. A few weeks later when we lost electricity for a weekend during a slightly cooler period of 90 something degree days and still suffered without air conditioning, I wondered how people had survived such heat in the past, and whether they still could when most every year brings new local and global heat records. I wondered whether they will be able to for long in parts of the world where people survive already at the edge of human heat tolerance with unreliable electricity, or even entirely without it.

To those who argue that numbers and statistics can be manipulated to support any agenda, including climate change, I say look to the natural world. From the tropics to the poles, on land and in sea, climate change is pushing species and entire ecosystems beyond historic limits. From my childhood days fishing on the Pacific with my father I recall being awed by the amaranthine sea and the diverse beauty of the creatures we captured or watched pass by. I had the great fortune in later years to travel to different seas, and experience first hand the coral reefs that in books seemed impossibly beautiful. I knew then what a tremendous treasure they were, and can only believe that anyone who's experienced them first hand and sees now what is happening to some of the finest of them knows that inaction is not an option. The evidence is clear from the multitude of studies and reports I found (see below) over just a few weeks of searching that the relatively small less than one degree centigrade change in average global temperature we've experienced so far is already having drastic effects on the planet's ecology.

As difficult as this last summer was for me and my family, I think of the thousands in India who lost there lives and the hundreds of millions who suffered terribly through the country's two consecutive record breaking heat waves. I think of natives on Arctic seas who have been forced to flee villages they've occupied for generations due to the retreat of sea ice and snow that until recently provided access to food and protected their homes from the erosion of stormy seas, and I think of the first mammalian species declared extinct due to rising waters from a warming world. I wonder whether we rely too heavily on the most conservative predictions of scientists who, with characteristic scientists' tendency to use only the surest and most proven data in their models and calculations, may be reluctant to voice their most serious concern over what they suspect but can't yet prove from our incomplete knowledge of this complex world we inhabit.

Addendum: A very apropos story:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-38805402

Climate:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201606

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201607

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/record-warmth-in-the-arctic-this-year/70000374

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/30/nasa-climate-change-warning-earth-temperature-warming

https://weather.com/science/nature/news/rising-ocean-temperatures-challenge

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/13/505434080/scientists-report-the-arctic-is-melting-even-more-rapidly

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/01/04/floods-natural-disasters-2016/96120150/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/arctic-maps-climate-change/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fbp20170110news-arcticdata&utm_campaign=Content&sf50231803=1

Columbia, SC weather:

http://www.wltx.com/news/local/hottest-columbia-july-on-record/285295999

http://www.weather.gov/cae/july2016Climate.html

https://weather.com/news/weather/news/record-warm-south-july-2016

Plant and animal effects from and adaptations to climate change:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2016/06/15/first-mammal-extinct-climate-change/85931592/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161110115540.htm

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/how-climate-change-is-hurting-ecosystems-across-the-globe/70000138

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/20/opinions/sutter-arctic-melting-george-divoky/index.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141002-walruses-climate-change-science-global-warming-animals-alaska/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161020143224.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150904-polar-bears-dolphins-seals-climate-change/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ten-species-are-evolving-due-changing-climate-180953133/?no-ist

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/15-animals-facing-extinction-due-to-climate-change/70000220

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161212084646.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140506-climate-change-adaptation-evolution-coral-science-butterflies/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161031090032.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whales-fish-adapt-climate-induced-changes/

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/02/487938345/planning-for-the-future-of-a-park-where-the-trees-have-one-name

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/05/492713407/for-lizards-climate-change-is-a-deadly-and-complex-threat

http://www.audubon.org/news/climate-change-shifts-bird-migration-one-generation-time

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/landsat-satellite-sees-florida-mangroves-migrate-north/#.WABXBvkrLIU

http://www.reuters.com/video/2016/11/28/climate-change-deepens-thailands-fish-cr?videoId=370572430&videoChannel=118169

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38610862

http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article120193173.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-38450228

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120116095527.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140527114909.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161031160445.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140804065942.htm

https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.elsevier-1fc6d1f3-0816-30f0-9f33-94d864c26a7b

Coral bleaching:

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/great-barrier-reef-queensland-australia-coral-bleaching-complete-ecosystem

https://www.buzzfeed.com/robstott/this-is-what-the-great-barrier-reef-looks-like-after-the-cor?utm_term=.ud0zy0yLm#.yfEgzRzwy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mass-global-coral-bleaching-wasnt-a-thing-30-years_us_57be32b1e4b00c54015c4678

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-38127320

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/asia/maldives/articles/maldives-devastated-by-coral-bleaching-as-2016-shapes-up-to-be-hottest-on-record/

http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/08/06/guam-coral-reefs-damaged-harmed-climate-change/88284082/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/21/coral-bleaching-event-now-biggest-in-history-and-about-to-get-worse

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scientists-take-on-great-barrier-reef-obituary_us_57fff8f1e4b0162c043b068f

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-oceans-idUSKCN11E1PA


Climate change causes coevolved species to become out of synch:

http://sciencenordic.com/ecosystems-driven-out-sync-climate-change

http://www.biosphereonline.com/2016/06/30/climate-change-disrupting-seasonal-behaviour/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/06/climate-change-is-disrupting-flower-pollination-research-shows

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5380553

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7089/full/nature04539.html

https://www2.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/tick-tock-natures-clock-out-of-sync/

http://www.livescience.com/19679-climate-change-seasons-shift-mismatch.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Bees/bees3.php

http://www.ecowatch.com/plants-of-the-colorado-rockies-show-impact-of-climate-change-1881878993.html

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/12/bees-plants-pollination-climate-change-global-warming/1#.V_sVbPkrLIU


Climate change landscape effects:

http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/fzUZd7Z748TeHmB7p8cn/full/10.1146/annurev-marine-041911-111611


Agriculture and Climate change:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/09/22/french-wine-global-warming-weather/90120252/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/10/12/497578413/coffee-and-climate-change-in-brazil-a-disaster-is-brewing

India heat wave:

https://weather.com/safety/heat/news/deadly-southern-eastern-india-heat-wave-2016

https://thinkprogress.org/death-toll-rises-as-indias-heat-wave-breaks-records-c770951335de#.ph3fpbs3p

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/india-heat-wave-kills-thousands

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161215152126.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/world/asia/india-heat-wave.html?_r=0

http://time.com/4357909/india-rajasthan-heat-wave-temperatures-delhi-monsoon/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/12/15/climate-change-intensified-heat-waves/95431732/

Climate change impacts on people:

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/10/509176361/alaskan-village-citing-climate-change-seeks-disaster-relief-in-order-to-relocate

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/10/476071206/as-waters-rise-miami-beach-builds-higher-streets-and-political-willpower

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/27/491337521/in-warmer-climate-a-luxury-cruise-sets-sail-through-northwest-passage

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/07/27/487364060/in-alaskas-remote-towns-climate-change-is-already-leaving-many-hungry

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/27/485601554/visitors-to-a-shrinking-alaskan-glacier-get-a-lesson-on-climate-change

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-relocation-idUSKCN10S23Z

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/14/478040492/native-americans-relocation-from-louisiana-home-first-climate-change-refugees

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/15/492260099/outdated-fema-flood-maps-dont-account-for-climate-change

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-idUSKCN11K0BC

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36989173

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html?_r=2

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/04/505320391/louisiana-history-washes-away-as-sea-levels-rise-land-sinks

Something related to chew on:

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/10/01/495437158/climate-change-and-the-astrobiology-of-the-anthropocene

The "R" in Trump

It's no great surprise that someone as single minded in his business focus  should view regulation, and environmental regulation in particular, as just an unnecessary hindrance to economic progress. To me it is apparent that Trump is of the type of highly successful business man who obtains a hyperinflated view of his self worth, excusing himself to bend rules or break them, or change them to his favor, find loopholes, peddle influence and throw his weight around, intimidate, bribe and subjugate. This type of business man views business as a game by which his self worth is determined, and thus equates the game with life. At some point during this game an ethic of "win at all cost" is adopted, and those who would support rules and regulations that stand in his way are viewed by him as peons and bureaucrats whose only goal is to obstruct his pathway to power.

The duration of the game is his professional lifetime, with perhaps some thought of legacy continuing through monuments or edifices bearing his name, and maybe through heirs and inheritors of his business. The skills and values he holds in highest regard are those used to manipulate and control people and their systems. He employs his knowledge of human nature to divine opportunities from capricious trends and fads, has a knack for finding profit in varied political and economic climates, and is a consummate master at wielding his monetary power and convincingly presenting his word as the last on any subject. The most convincing of such people is the one who most believes in his own infallibility.

This narrowly focused world view and associated skills may work well in business, where bluff and bluster can be assets, but nature and the environment are not deceived by self certain grandiloquence. As an endless stream of evidence shows, neglect, miscalculation, and bad judgement with regards to our environment and natural resources will have repercussions that far outlast any business, administration, or career. Denial will not stand against nature's truths.

During my career as an environmental consultant I worked with many developers, Trump's brand of businessman. There were a few who understood and appreciated the need for environmental regulation but many derided the laws I explained to them as too much worry about bugs and bunnies, or about swamps ditches and puddles. They had little interest in the tremendous amount of science that went in to developing laws and policies that protect our water quality, help prevent flood damage and erosion, and protect biodiversity. Their interest was in developing as much of their land as possible with the minimal time and expense. Environmental regulation to them meant only permits, time, and cost. Trump's long career in and self identification with the industry have likely solidified his animosity for environmental regulation and his dismissal of it as nothing but a hurdle to economic progress. With career long training in such a short term view of success, that it is tied to the next big project, it is no surprise that something that is not affecting his bottom line in an immediate way, something like climate change whose worst effects many warn will occur over the course of the century, is not on his list of real concerns.

Although it's hard to imagine that a man wily enough to pull off winning the presidency despite his baggage and many verbal blunders is also stupid enough to totally ignore the mountains of scientific evidence that prove climate change is occurring and is tied to increases in anthropogenic carbon emissions, that is what we are forced to believe from his decision to pull the US from the Paris Climate Agreement, from his appointment of prominent climate deniers and oil company executives as advisers and likely cabinet members, from his threats to tear down the EPA, and from his stated determination to eliminate restrictions on and speed up development of coal, oil, and gas resources. His climate change denial seems constant and resolute at a current snapshot, yet more investigation suggests his view on the subject may be more schizophrenic. In 2009 he signed a letter to President Obama calling for action on climate change, which the letter warned would cause "catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet" while the president attended talks on climate change with international leaders in Copenhagen.  More recently, in 2016, the same year he was adamant and obstinate in climate change denial during the election, he applied for a permit to build a sea wall to protect a golf resort he owned, citing erosion due to sea level rise and increasing frequency of severe storms driven by climate change as reasons. What explains this climate change denial schizophrenia? Are there moments or events where the evidence is so strong that denial is impossible even for him, or is his public repudiation largely an act of expediency? Either way, the road down which he is planning to take this nation, this planet, and the next generation by unleashing oil, gas, and coal industries from regulation is irresponsible and dangerous. If he's looking for his name to be remembered through history he might just get that, but not for the reasons he wants. When the warm waters of the tropical coasts rise to flow through the lower floors of the buildings that bear his name, we will all remember.


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-climate-miami-20160918-snap-story.html

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Donald_Trump_Energy_+_Oil.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research?CMP=share_btn_fb

https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/trump-buildings-underwater?utm_term=.kavyV9GkB#.virxavK7G

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/07/donald-trump-maralago-climate-change

https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trump-wants-to-build-another-wall-but-never-talks-about-it-heres-why-9635e8229ee8#.ei2r3cobi

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/17/502425711/hundreds-of-u-s-businesses-urge-trump-to-uphold-paris-climate-deal

http://www.forbes.com/sites/edfenergyexchange/2016/11/17/a-warning-for-donald-trump-gutting-epa-would-be-harder-and-more-perilous-than-you-think/2/#25abf3446b47

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/13/will-trump-end-californias-climate-rules/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503156456/trump-says-he-has-open-mind-on-climate-but-staff-pick-raises-questions


2016 Warmest year:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37949877

Record CO2:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37729033

Rapidly melting ice Antarctic ice sheets:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/25/499206005/antarcticas-ice-sheets-are-melting-faster-and-from-beneath

The Real Cost of "Food Waste"

Most of us wouldn't think of pouring gasoline, "food" for our vehicles down the drain, but our own food production may have an even greater impact on the environment. Around the world forests are cleared at increasing rates for crops and pasture, so that now almost half the planet's land area is used for food production. Likewise the greatest portion of our freshwater use is directed to food production. Production of fertilizer uses a significant amount of energy, and excess fertilizer pollutes our waterways, and eventually oceans, with nutrients that cause algal blooms and oxygen depletion. An endless assembly line of agricultural pesticides and herbicides pollute our land and water with novel, man made chemicals whose full effects we are yet to discover. Soil tillage and livestock grazing exposes soil to erosion into waterways and factory farm monocultures leave no room for native species. A full 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to livestock production alone.

In my house there is no such thing as food waste. First, we consider how much we are cooking, and for how many people. Next, we store and consume leftovers in the refrigerator or freezer. We have a dog who gets first dibs at all appropriate non human consumable leftovers, or the rare item placed in the refrigerator for a little too long.  All vegetable leftovers are utilized by my houseplants and garden, which is largely responsible for me never needing to purchase fertilizer. We need to remember that natural balanced systems exist as a cycle. Maybe the difficulty in this understanding is part of the larger problem we have with our planet.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/10/15/497854941/in-fight-against-food-waste-brits-find-a-worthy-battlefield-the-home

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/embedded-water/

https://woods.stanford.edu/news-events/news/meats-environmental-impact

http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whopper-environmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/

An update: a great article in Science Daily about a study that provides the carbon footprint of a great variety of food:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161102075950.htm

The author describes the results as useful for individuals and catering companies who want to reduce their carbon footprint with their food choices. I agree and applaud the study, although caution that carbon footprint is only one factor to consider in evaluating the true cost of what we eat.

Those Who Forget The Past........

are condemned to relive it, as the old saying goes, but what is the fate of a society, a species, a planet whose dominant beings deny impacts from their own activities, clearly evident in trends, past weighed against present?

Today's 5.6 frackquake in Oklahoma, the largest so far, is nothing to scoff at, and that coming from a California native who's ridden out quite a few earthquakes of varying sizes, including the 1989 Loma Prieta that took 60 or so lives. In a place like Oklahoma, where buildings are not designed to withstand significant seismic activity due to the historic rarity of such events, we're very lucky that this one was centered in a rural area, and so only a few buildings were damaged. However, the incredible increase in seismic activity which corresponds perfectly with the increase in fracking and deep injection of fracking waste fluids in the region over the last decade and a half, along with the continued denial of culpability by the industry and politicians and others who are either impotent or unwilling in attempts to regulate the industry, or worse complicit for financial and political reasons, makes it only a matter of time before a much more destructive frackquake claims lives as well as property. It's both tragic and infuriating to know that it will take the realization and subsequent legal and financial arguments following something so predictable and avoidable as this inevitable catastrophe to finally begin to reign in this unfettered industry.

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/oklahoma-earthquake-raises-concerns-about-possible-link-to-fracking-757682755642

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/03/492517062/earthquake-rattles-oklahoma-one-of-strongest-recorded-in-state

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/us/as-quakes-rattle-oklahoma-fingers-point-to-oil-and-gas-industry.html?_r=0

Next is Hermine, at the time of this writing still rejuvenating over unusually warm Gulf stream waters and preparing to lash the northeastern United States after passing through my city with fairly copious amounts of rain. While it is not expected to bring near as much destruction to the northeast as Sandy did, it still has potential to create serious flooding and other damage. Although the two storms are dissimilar due to size and differences in seasonality, they do share something that has the finger prints of global warming on it, and portends an increase in such storms in the future. I heard a couple of stories on the radio describing the unusual "blocking ridge of high pressure" off the northeast US coast that would stall this storm just off the coast or even bring it onshore, instead of allowing it to accelerate out to sea. This is similar to what happened with Sandy. It was described as being almost unheard of until recently but is something that fits in with models of global warming. I did a bit of research and found several articles mentioning a study in 2012 that described the increase in frequency of this blocking ridge over Greenland, an effect predicted by global warming, and predicted it causing more storms to take a track like Sandy's into the northeast US, among other impacts. Yet even with such detailed evidence, links, and pure science our politicians find ways to denigrate the idea of global warming.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160426215430.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/climate-change-hurricane-sandy-global-warming_n_2050516.html

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-global-warming-made-hurricane-sandy-worse-15190

So what is the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this post?  It's almost to frightening to seriously consider, which is the exact reason that we must.

Lessons From The Land In A Capricious Climate

There is nothing like gardening to get one in touch with the whims of nature. 2015, the fourth year of my no till garden began tremendously, the spring was warm and the last frost was early in March. Plants grew like crazy and I managed the earliest tomatoes since I've grown them from seed in South Carolina. Then came heat and drought, culminating in the 4th hottest and 9th driest July, and the third hottest summer on record for Columbia, a place that already advertises itself as famously hot. Despite the excellent looking dark soils and my best effort to keep up with water needs many of my plants withered from the heat. I perhaps picked the wrong year not to keep up my practice of applying a thick layer of leaves in the winter, in order to allow seedling lettuce not to get covered. Next came the flooding of October. I live in the hard hit Forest Acres section of Columbia and the devastation surrounded us. My rain gauge, a 14" tall bucket, overflowed in a single night. Fortunately our home sits on a hillside and so was not affected except for a few minor leaks, a 2 day power outage, and the citywide boil water advisory that lasted for almost 2 weeks. The thousand year, unprecedented rainfall broke records in much of the state. Due again to our slope, and perhaps the thick organic soils I've developed my garden survived, some of the plants I thought were lost to the heat and drought of summer came back and managed to survive almost until the end of the year due to a much warmer than normal November and December that had me fighting off mosquitoes when I worked in it on New Year's eve. Still, the wild fluctuations did not make for a productive crop this year.

 One of several dams in the Forest Acres area destroyed by the October flood.

A building in Columbia with the foundation washed out by the flood.

As bad a year as it was in my small garden it was much worse for many of the state's farmers. In traveling to study sites across the SC coastal plain I saw fields full of withered yellow and brown corn stalks. In October I saw on the news inundated farms and houses in these same areas, with water levels near the roofs of homes, and fields flooded for weeks. Many suffered complete loss. I heard an interview on the radio with a local farmer who worked the land his family held for generations. He said that until this year he'd never heard of a year in which all three staple crops: corn, cotton, and peanuts had failed.

 

A crop that did do well for me this long, hot South Carolina summer - pineapple!

Two studies I worked on clearly illustrated the schizophrenic nature of recent weather. In one study we measured river levels over the course of the last year on a branch of the PeeDee River in the coastal plain of South Carolina. While comparing our measurements to the nearest USGS gauge we discovered that the river levels went from among the lowest measured to among the highest measured within a couple of months. The second study was a continuation of a multiyear water quality study on Lake Wateree, a large managed reservoir between Columbia and Charlotte. Temperatures in the lake continued their recent warming trend this summer which is likely leading to an increase in the bluegreen algae (cyanobacteria) blooms occurring over the last few years.  The warm waters this summer helped fuel a rapid bloom which was finally disrupted by the heavy stream flows from the October rains.

Extreme weather events and fluctuations were hardly limited to South Carolina this year. California switched from extreme drought to flooding, as did the Pacific northwest, Lousiana, and the southern plains. All time rainfall records, including in some cases monthly totals, were smashed across the nation as were high temperature records. December broke the national record for both heat and precipitation and produced unheard of winter flooding on the Mississippi River. Across the globe drought, heat, and rainfall records were broken. Even our oceans tell us something is amiss, with the second ever hurricane to form in January in the Atlantic, the lowest latitude western hemisphere tropical cyclone, and the earliest hurricane on record in either the central or eastern north Pacific all occurring this winter. Some of this may be attributable to the large El Nino event this year but then one may ask why is it that the two largest recorded El Nino events have occurred within the last twenty years.

I wondered as I walked along the beach in Charleston, SC, on a balmy Christmas eve day whether perhaps we're too far removed from the land, from gardens and farms to see the patterns. Do we move too often to really know an area, are we so busy that we forget the January stroll through the park in our t-shirt with the daffodills blooming along the trail, are the news images of floods, droughts, and people seeking relief from heat now so commonplace that we no longer distinguish one event from another?

Just as I'm completing this post a news alert appeared in my email stating that NASA and NOAA have determined that 2015 was the warmest year on record by a large margin, and that 15 of the warmest 16 years have occurred since 2001:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/20/463709775/a-scorcher-2015-shatters-record-as-warmest-year-nasa-and-noaa-say?utm_source=npr_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20160120&utm_campaign=alert&utm_term=breakingnews

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/2015-was-earth-s-warmest-year-record-noaa-says-n500406

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/01/20/earths-warmest-year-record-global-warming/79051806/

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

I think of some of my earliest posts, including one from years ago ("Does Anyone Still Need Evidence" Aug 7, 2007) in which I noticed what seemed to me then to be a more erratic climate pattern and nicknamed it "climate yoyo". These trends must be apparent to anyone who's lived in a place for many years and observed the world outside their front door.

As I drive around Columbia now, three months after the great flood, I see that most of the major repairs to roads and bridges have been completed. The casual observer may not realize that there was a disaster unless he happens across one of the broken dams, one of the buildings with a foundation washed out, or one of the scattered homes still undergoing repair, with drywall and lumber piled up in the street in front. If one looks closer, however, especially one who's been in the area awhile, he will see the fissures in the hillsides, the new scourings in the stream channels, the small but incessant seeps from the slopes and even from the roadways themselves, creating new sinks and potholes, and the small chunks of asphalt ceding to the scour at the corners of neighborhood bridges over now placated streams. I think that when we think of climate change impact we may picture the obvious, the big floods and streets inundated by rising seas, but we may miss this type of "death by a thousand cuts."

I've discussed in a recent post reasons people doubt climate change, but ignorance and denial seem less and less possible each year and with each new headline. I'd like to think that we are not a suicidal species, not so intransigent even in the face of increasingly clear science and the evidence outside our front doors, if we choose to see it, that we can't cast aside the campaign of obfuscation waged by a few duplicitous moneyed interests and act for our future, while there's still a chance.

Current extreme weather events:
 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-and-the-science-of-extreme-weather/
http://www.npr.org/2016/01/07/462265900/u-s-weather-wet-and-wild-in-2015-though-no-big-hurricanes
http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/02/extreme-weather-climate-chaos/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/27/extreme-weather-already-on-increase-due-to-climate-change-study-finds
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/science/climate-chaos-across-the-map.html?_r=0
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-2015-had-such-crazy-weather-2015-12
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/17/2015-hottest-year-on-record-noaa
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/05/december-2015-was-wettest-month-ever-recorded-in-uk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11548416/Only-a-third-of-average-rainfall-with-April-almost-over.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/10/05/south-carolina-flooding-climate-change/73385778/
http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/wettest-month-on-record-united-states-may-2015
http://www.weather.com/forecast/regional/news/plains-rain-flood-threat-wettest-may-ranking
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/06/01/record-breaking-may-rainfall-in-texas-and-oklahoma-by-the-numbers/
http://www.wunderground.com/news/plains-rain-flood-threat-wettest-may-ranking
http://www.weather.com/news/news/june-records-heat-rain-2015
http://wxshift.com/news/blog/drought-to-deluge-last-weeks-gulf-coast-soaker-just-a-start
http://www.weather.com/forecast/national/news/christmas-week-forecast-warm-east
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201512
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/el-ni-o-finally-here-mudslide-fears-raised-california-n490506
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/special-issue/
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/record-breaking-heavy-rainfall-events-increased-under-global-warming

El Nino strongest ever:

http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/el-nino-ties-record-january-2016
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/01/14/noaa-latest-el-nino-is-now-tied-for-strongest-ever.html?intcmp=hphz06

El Nino history:

http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

2015-2016 Winter Hurricanes:

http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/hurricane-alex-atlantic-ocean-azores
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/azores-threatened-out-season-hurricane-named-alex-n496451
http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/tropical-depression-one-c-pali-central-pacific?cm_ven=T_WX_L:_11116_6
http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/tropical-depression-one-c-pali-central-pacific

Columbia, SC 2015 weather:

http://www.weather.gov/cae/August2015ClimateSummary.html
http://www.weather.gov/cae/jul2015ClimateSummary.html
http://w2.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=cae

SC weather 2015:

http://www.weather.com/news/news/south-carolina-historic-flood-rainfall-record-extreme
http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/30870137/2015-a-year-of-extremes

Effects of climate change:
http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-before-and-after-pictures-of-earth-2015-2

South Carolina crop losses:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/12/01/457974642/s-c-farmers-burdened-by-catastrophic-rainfall-crop-losses
http://www.wistv.com/story/30874528/weather-causes-crop-woes-in-newberry-county
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2015/11/22/389719.htm
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2015/10/12/384583.htm

Benefits far outweigh costs in fighting climate change:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/13/benefits-far-outweigh-costs-tackling-climate-change-lse-study

A New Year's Resolution

I just have to vent my incredulity at what we continue to allow the oil and gas extraction industry to get away with. The evidence continues to amass and reports of industry officials attempting to hinder and obfuscate scientific findings become more blatant as they become increasingly alarming. Have we become so resigned to industry rhetoric that we accept the now constant small to medium strength earthquakes in a region that once had very few as the new norm, an acceptable price of doing business? Coming from California I know that you can grow complaisant with occasional smaller earthquakes but then I also well remember my first hand experience with the Loma Prieta quake.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-fracking-causing-oklahomas-earthquakes/ 

http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/16/oklahoma-most-earthquakes-fracking/

https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/tag/earthquake/

http://www.ibtimes.com/oklahoma-earthquakes-2015-tremors-rise-oklahoma-officials-struggle-stem-fracking-2138124

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/us/earthquakes-in-oklahoma-raise-fears-of-a-big-one.html?_r=2

Do we just throw up our hands and say "Boys will be boys" when we find that as early as 1977 Exxon's (and likely all major oil company's) own researchers predicted severe global warming from continuation of the company's activities, and rather than committing to discovering solutions the company began a massive campaign of disinformation and denial?

http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-exxon-knew-about-climate-change

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/05/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-for-climate-change-denial

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/06/america-has-been-lied-to-about-climate-change/

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/23122015/2015-exxon-mobil-climate-change-science-research-exxonknew-investigation-petition

In another 40 years will we be asking the same questions of fracking companies that allow highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals into our streams, rivers, irrigation and livestock water, and perhaps eventually drinking water supplies?

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/fracking-wastewater-cancer-causing-new-study-confirms-1

http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/10/fracking-wastewater-chemicals-cancer/

http://www.mintpressnews.com/livestock-falling-ill-in-fracking-regions/211720/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fracking-fluid-health-study_568db472e4b0cad15e636b70

http://ecowatch.com/2014/09/08/fracking-wastewater-study/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3915249/

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/01/dep_announces_new_regulations.html

Are we too numbed for outrage that lack of oversight and maintenance of an aged but immense underground gas storage well with a history of problems has led to the biggest such leak in history, a now over 2 month long eruption of enough methane, a potent greenhouse gas, to become California's single largest point source emmission of greenhouse gas?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/05/aliso-canyon-leak-california-climate-change

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0104-gas-leak-20160104-story.html

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-company-behind-las-methane-disaster-knew-its-well-was-leaking-24-years-ago

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-we-cant-stop-the-enormous-methane-leak-flooding-la

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34298-how-corporate-greed-caused-the-massive-california-methane-leak
 

http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/04/porter-ranch-methane-leak/

Has cheap gas and the perceived power of these large corporations really deadened our desire, made us impotent to fight for our planet? If so, we should stand shoulder to shoulder with oil and gas company executives in the not too distant future, explaining to our children and grandchildren our complicity in the dire state of the world we've bequeathed them. I, for one, will take a stand, make a resolution that I will not allow myself to be put in that unimaginably uncomfortable situation.

Climate Change - The Politics, Faith, and Science of an Obfuscated Truth

I can't resist the urge to write something about my elation at the release of Pope Francis' encyclical exhorting us towards environmental responsibility for our planet, and at my disappointment at those Catholic presidential candidates who would admonish the pope for recognizing and speaking such a crucial truth.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/pope-urges-sweeping-change-save-planet-n377556

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/18/415429852/pope-francis-climate-change-a-principal-challenge-for-humanity

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/world/europe/pope-francis-in-sweeping-encyclical-calls-for-swift-action-on-climate-change.html?_r=0

As pointed out by a speaker on the Weather Channel's "Climate 25" series, Republicans once led on environmental issues – conservative and conservation are related words, after all - but have somehow lost their way on this issue. From the evidence I can see they've been hijacked by big industry and its anti-regulation agenda.

http://weather.climate25.com/project/heidi-cullen/

Funny that these politicians can dismiss the pope’s voicing of his concern on climate change as a dabbling into politics, rather than what it truly is, something well within his purview as shepherd of the people. A shepherd’s job, most simply, is to guide his flock to safety and lead it from danger, part of which includes protecting the flock’s pasture, in the pope’s case our planet, our one God given home, from abuse and degradation which would lead to mass suffering of the flock. Should the leader of a religion whose foremost teaching is love for all mankind stand by in silence as he watches those he loves and those who trust him speed headlong towards a cliff?

Those pick and choose Catholic politicians such as Rick Santorum who in their hubris, inanity, or, most likely, pandering to big political contributors like the Koch brothers and big (oil & gas) industry elite deride the pope’s directive on climate change by declaring that the pope should “leave science to the scientists” should heed their own message. Likewise for Jeb Bush when he declares "I don't get my economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope,” and Marco Rubio when he says "humans are not responsible for climate change in the way some of these people out there are trying to make us believe.” The "some of these people" are scientists whose profession it is to collect and analyze and scrutinize the data and conclusions of their colleagues for possible mistakes and misinterpretations. Pope Francis, with something of a science background himself understands this. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/03/12/pope-francis-scientist-2/

http://www.ibtimes.com/pope-francis-master-chemistry-another-example-catholicisms-long-association-science-1131595

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/17/us-pope-environment-idUSKBN0OX1LW20150617

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/us/politics/popes-views-press-gop-on-climate-change.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/04/rick-santorum-wants-pope-francis-to-leave-science-to-scientists-only-when-its-convenient-for-him/

Anybody who starts a conversation with the phrase “I’m no scientist but..” should, with common sense, have no issue deferring to those who have dedicated their lives to the study of a subject, and had their work scrutinized by their peers. If they made the effort to do so they would find why almost every serious climate scientist and science paper supports the conclusion that climate change is occurring, and that it is largely human caused. Anyone who spends a few hours delving into the science of the issue will find sound, overwhelming and unequivocal data and studies that very clearly show the evidence for human caused global warming, such as this by Stanford researchers:

Source: solar-center.stanford.edu

In fact, it's difficult if not impossible to find anything like true science that casts any doubt at all on human caused climate change. Climate change deniers can perhaps only point to pseudoscience supported by the Heartland Institute, a Koch brothers, oil and other big industry funded organization with a stated goal of denying climate change. 

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/science/naomi-oreskes-a-lightning-rod-in-a-changing-climate.html?action=click&contentCollection=Science&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/06/20/dark-money-funding-climate-change-denial

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

It is not only the right, but the responsibility of Pope Francis, charged with the love and care of his flock, mankind, to speak out with the full might of his office when he sees we are headed for danger. I, for one, am much more concerned about trusting the future of this great nation to someone who either can't discern the difference between real science and biased pseudoscience, or worse, someone who willingly supports an agenda to mislead its citizens on something as critical to our future as climate change than I am about the pope making well advised and intelligent directives based on science.