Archive for the ‘Pollution’ Category

Independent Scientists to Examine IPCC’s Processes and Procedures

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

An independent panel is set to scrutinize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It comes on the heels of the hacked emails of top IPCC scientists in England, a bad report about the rate of Himalayan glacier melt, and arguments by deniers that all is not up to par with IPCC reports.

So according to an ENS article, “A multinational organization of the world’s science academies will conduct an independent review of processes and procedures used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to arrive at its reports on the science of climate change.” This organization is the IAC or Inter Academy Council that will pick the expert panel of scientists “to examine every aspect of how the IPCC’s reports are prepared, including the use of non-peer reviewed literature and the reflection of diverse viewpoints.”

The article further stated, “The review will be led by the IAC co-chairs Robbert Dijkgraaf, PhD, president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, and Professor Lu Yongxiang, president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.”

Dijkgraaf said in that article, “‘Our goal will be to assure nations around the world that they will receive sound, definitive scientific advice on which governments and citizens alike can make informed decisions.’” The word assure looks to be definitive.

After reading the whole article, it doesn’t appear the IPCC is at all deterred by any of this. It seems they invite the scrutiny so that their next report improves. It’s not exactly an admission of guilt. It looks like all the fuss by deniers that there is a big cover up about omissions of data that should be investigated is happening; the bluff has been called. Will everyone unite after this major investigation? Sheesh, doubtful. What happens if the independent panel finds there is very little wrong or that what is in error in the IPCC reports does not alter the fact that climate change is accelerating and it is fueled by excessive manmade pollution/emissions?

In preemptive defense of this independent council because deniers are going to sling arrows in every direction anyway, the article stated the experts aren’t paid by anyone, which removes motivation other than making sure data is correct and interpreted properly. As a matter of fact, they are “pro bono volunteers who are not under obligation to any government, the IPCC, or the United Nations.” Pro bono means “done for the public good without compensation.” The UN will fund only the travel and meeting expenses. In other words, the guy’s in the hot seat have to pick up the tab.

All the skeptic finger pointing has come to fruition. The world expects unity when all is inspected, or better yet, scrutinized and decided by scientists uninfluenced by either side of the climate debate. We’ll see what happens.

Read the whole article: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2010/2010-03-10-01.html.

Earth’s 9 Life Support Systems and How They Fare Today

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

Found an interesting article on New Scientist’s website that reported about a team of scientists that “identified nine ‘planetary life-support systems’ that are vital for human survival. They then quantified how far we have pushed them already, and estimated how much further we can go without threatening our own survival. Beyond certain boundaries, they warned, we risk causing ‘irreversible and abrupt environmental change’ that could make the Earth a much less hospitable place.”

The team of “28 luminaries from environmental and earth-systems science” was hosted by Johan Rockstrom, director of the Stockholm Environment Institute in Sweden, and included Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, NASA climate scientist James Hansen, Gaia researcher and ‘tipping point’ specialist Tim Lenton, and the German chancellor’s chief climate adviser Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.”

The nine areas of concern are:

Acid oceans
Ozone Depletion
Fresh water
Biodiversity
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Cycles
Land use
Climate change
Aerosol loading
Chemical pollution

It was an interesting assessment and a lot of info for every concern. The article stated that Rockstrom stresses “the boundaries are ‘rough, first estimates only, surrounded by large uncertainties and knowledge gaps’. They also interact with one another in complex and poorly understood ways. But he says the concept of boundaries is an advance on the usual approach taken by environmentalists, who simply aim to minimise all human impacts on the planet. Instead, he says, boundaries give us some breathing space. They define a “safe space for human development”.

Take time to read how almost 7 billion people are affecting the earth and goals we need to accomplish in order for us to sustain ourselves alongside all other living things.

http://www.newscientist.com/special/ocean-to-ozone-earths-nine-life-support-systems.

Scientists Other Than IPCC Affirm Consensus on Global Warming

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

An ENS article reported: “A panel of eminent U.S. and European scientists has confirmed the widespread scientific consensus that the Earth’s climate is warming due to human activities, but said they and their colleagues should have responded more quickly and effectively to news of an error in a major climate report and hacked researcher e-mails.”

In an annual symposium at the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) scientists acknowledged a recent error and reports about hacked e-mail leaving out data relative to global warming. However, “many scientists say comments from the emails were taken out of context and used in misleading ways.” Really “There has been no change in the scientific community, no change whatsoever,” in the consensus that global average temperatures have been steadily climbing since the mid-20th century,” said Jerry North, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.

These scientists not unlike last night’s blog, found little amiss that would make much of a change in our climate future, but believe after the error and hacked emails there needs to be much more communication to the public in laymen’s terms so that the public understands the science behind climate change and doesn’t buy into the misleading spin attached to every mistake turned up. The scientists at the AAAS symposium “expressed shock at the political effects of the disclosures and said the impact was far out of proportion to the overwhelming evidence that human activity is changing the Earth’s climate.”

Meanwhile, “An independent investigation is ongoing. The Royal Society will provide advice to the University of East Anglia in identifying assessors to conduct an independent external reappraisal of the Climatic Research Unit’s key publications.” Lord Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society in the U.K. said “It is important that people have the utmost confidence in the science of climate change. Where legitimate doubts are raised about any piece of science they must be fully investigated – that is how science works. The names being put forward by the society will be acting as individuals, not representatives of the Society and the Society will have no oversight of this independent review.”

Read the article: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2010/2010-02-20-01.html.

Texas, the Biggest U.S. Polluter, Challenges EPA/Clean Air Act

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

Texas produces 35% of our entire nation’s toxic emissions and doesn’t want to change. So Texas has just challenged the EPA relative to regulating greenhouse gas emissions. From what I’ve read it’s state’s rights versus federal according to Texas governor Rick Perry. He claims Texas is doing a fine job of monitoring emissions and getting them under control, and for the EPA to suddenly come down on Texas will cost the state jobs and the involved industries millions that will be passed down to the consumer. He and others also “site ’scientifically flawed studies’ as their basis for challenging the agency’s decision.” Sorry climate change aside, CO2, SO2, and other greenhouse gases have been found to be detrimental to respiratory health by our own government agency. This challenge is nothing but a stall.

The Dallas Morning News website reported that the other challengers are “the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank and conservative advocacy outfit; the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, an organized group of climate-change skeptics; and the Science and Environmental Policy Act, which has challenged the United Nations over findings that buttressed previous climate-change treaties. Greenwire says in its story yesterday that Freedomworks, the advocacy group headed by former Rep. Dick Armey of Denton County, is also involved in the challenge.”

http://energyandenvironmentblog.dallasnews.com/archives/tceq/.

Let’s look at the assertions the governor made. Is Texas doing a fine job of taking care of its pollution? Well not so much. According to an article on Center for Public Integrity’s website, Texas has been caught doing a lot of dirty stuff to their citizens for years.

In October, 2003, in the space of three hours, while the 94,000-plus inhabitants of Tyler slept nearby, Martin Lake [Steam Electric Station] pumped more than 150,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide into the East Texas air. The pollution was more than eight times the plant’s hourly emissions limits under federal regulations. Sulfur dioxide air pollution, as environmentalists, regulators, and TXU officials have known for many years, helps trigger asthma attacks and other respiratory diseases.

After the October 2003 event, TXU reported the emissions overage to TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). But a comparison between EPA and TCEQ records shows that the company gave a far lower emissions figure to state officials than the smokestack monitor registered.

Hmmm. They lied. The same article continued:

[]A three-month review of federal and state records by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit journalism organization, suggests [the above wasn't a one time incident]. The review, encompassing 25 million data entries spanning 10 years, shows that between 1997 and 2006, TXU’s coal-fired plants exceeded federal sulfur dioxide emission limits nearly 650 times, spewing more than 1.3 million pounds of excess sulfur dioxide into the Texas air.

Read what the USGS, a government agency, has to say about excesses of SO2, CO2, and hydrogen fluoride relative to volcanic eruptions and regardless of climate change:

The volcanic gases that pose the greatest potential hazard to people, animals, agriculture, and property are sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen fluoride. Locally, sulfur dioxide gas can lead to acid rain and air pollution downwind from a volcano. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless gas with a pungent odor that irritates skin and the tissues and mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, and throat. Sulfur dioxide chiefly affects upper respiratory tract and bronchi. The World Health Organization recommends a concentration of no greater than 0.5 ppm over 24 hours for maximum exposure. A concentration of 6-12 ppm can cause immediate irritation of the nose and throat; 20 ppm can cause eye irritation; 10,000 ppm will irritate moist skin within minutes.

.

TXU went over 8 times the hourly emissions limit for the Martin Lake plant

The Center for Public Integrity website also stated: “Childhood asthma affected about 3 percent of the population in the 1960s, but that figure has climbed above 9 percent, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control. In Fort Worth, a 2003 city health department survey found that asthma rates here were more than double the statewide average, and even higher for children.”

Governor Rick is wrong. Texas is not doing a good job of self regulation. Self regulation is nothing better than the fox guarding the henhouse because industry has no ethics anymore. For instance: “TXU was by no means the only polluter given a free pass by TCEQ. The records gathered by the Center show that, again and again in Texas, air quality enforcement came at the point of a citizen lawsuit, not from the agency.” Texas needs regulations from a higher place because I don’t think things are about to change in the near future in Texas:

As the largest energy provider in Texas, TXU has established an exceptional degree of influence in the Texas statehouse, through a network of high-profile lobbyists and political connections.

In spring 2007 when legislation to increase public oversight over the TXU buyout process was pending in the Senate, TXU and its buyers unleashed a powerhouse lobbying team including former state legislators Curtis Seidlits, Jr., Rudy Garza, Eddie Cavazos, Paul Sadler, and Stan Schlueter, and former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk.

According to Texans for Public Justice, TXU and two investor groups spent approximately $17 million during the 2007 Texas legislative session on lobbyists, advertising, food and beverages, entertainment and gifts – including sending 2,400 tacos to legislators and their aides on the first day of the session.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/projects/entry/363/.

There you have it, polluters spending millions to keep polluting, and whining at the same time that it will cost them millions to curb it. Again, what is known as “scrubbers” for coalburners were around in the 60’s. These scrubbers don’t do a thing for CO2 but do reduce SO2 emissions. And there was a Clean Coal Technology Program launched by the DOE in 1986.

It was a cost-shared effort by government and industry to demonstrate innovative coal-burning processes at a series of full-scale facilities around the country and was expected to finance more than $5 billion in projects before it was completed later in the decade. Under the program, the federal government provided up to 50 percent of the total cost of the demonstration projects. In the first two rounds of solicitation for proposals, the DOE selected 29 projects for funding. In the second round, held in the summer of 1988, seven of the 16 successful proposals involved the use of both wet and dry scrubber systems.

Where was TXU? It obviously didn’t take advantage of that program. I think I read somewhere that now it costs around 650 million dollars on average to put scrubbers on coalburners. It’s industry’s problem for not moving faster on behalf of the health and safety of citizens. Does a little over a half billion dollars constitute hardship for big industry that nets billions per quarter?

http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-scientific/scientific-research-development/120873-1.html.

Analysts like Al Armendariz, a chemical engineering professor at Southern Methodist University who is an expert on air pollution and an environmental advocate, said smaller and older facilities could face hefty costs, but major companies won’t feel a thing.

“They’ll say, ‘Look, if we have to spend half a million dollars to re-permit, big deal.’ They probably spend more than that on toiletries for those facilities,” he said, noting that even multimillion-dollar expenses would be a “one-time capital blip” for major companies. Armendariz also said he doubts industry claims that consumers could feel any pain.

http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-scientific/scientific-research-development/120873-1.html.

Al might doubt consumers will feel the pain, but it looks like in Texas and everywhere else the cards are already stacked against the average citizen’s health concerns. As for taxes, have you noticed all the petro commercials airing lately using the fear card…”Prices for consumers will go up. Consumers will be taxed more if the big bad government cracks down on industry pollution and tries to further alternatives.” Industry is already on the move to make Al eat his words.

Taxes and our health and well being should not be pitted against each other like a threat. We’ve been plied with fear for a decade. Consumers should not bear the expense to finance the changes polluting industries will have to make in the future to “clean up” because they failed to make them long ago when it would have been far less expensive. Likewise the consumer should not bear the guilt of any of the health problems that could have been avoided especially in children. Gotta laugh at that one since TXU, the governor of Texas, and anyone else who challenged the EPA obviously feels no remorse for anyone suffering respiratory illnesses at their hands. After all they provided jobs where workers could breathe a toxic brew everyday.

Nuclear Power Getting a Second Start

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Nuclear power is getting a second start in the U.S. with president Obama’s recent thumbs up for 2 nuke plants in Georgia. The president will roll out the first nuclear plant loan guarantee next week. From what I read, the article stated Southern Company/Georgia Power is building the 2 new plants right on the Plant Vogtle site in Georgia.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/80993-obama-to-roll-out-first-nuclear-plant-loan-guarantees-.

Stephen Smith, head of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy says that everyone is concerned with what to do with the nuclear waste, that there is currently no national repository for it. Smith also said that nuclear power plants are extremely expensive to build and the same amount of money, (in the billions), could be used for conservation programs, to build greener buildings, wind production, and to take advantage of the biomass opportunities in GA. The head of Georgia Power is all for renewable energy, especially the biomass market, and responded on CNN that he agreed with Stephen Smith.

My greatest concern is about the radioactive waste too. Waste has always been the biggest drawback to nuke plants. But like I said about the Fermi project, the property is already purchased and radioactive waste is already present, likewise for Plant Vogtle. Georgia Power is simply using the same site for newer facilities. Besides, in the past few decades since any reactors were built in the U.S., science has been working frantically to come up with ways to either disable radioactive material and/or shorten the time for radioactive material to dissipate from millions of years to only hundreds of years.

Here are links to some viable possibilities for limiting radioactive waste produced by nuke plants. There is so much coming out of India these days, I can’t begin to tell you. I’m not surprised that a team of German and Indian scientists have come up with a polymer that absorbs cobalt, so it reduces the amount of radioactive waste produced during routine operation of nuclear reactors. When I read about this I thought of the gel like beads that absorb excess water for release later. This process won’t disable radioactive waste but it will decrease the amount we have to dispose of.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511090842.htm.

There is also a process that may increase the deactivation time for radioactive waste from millions of years to 300-500 years. While this still seems like a lot of time, it’s a start and sounds like something we really need to get moving on if we’re going to start building nukes again.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080922100148.htm.

Here is a government website that lists all the methods to deal with radioactive waste. We may as well get informed, because nuclear is happening.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0017.shtml.

Valentine’s Day Goes Green

Friday, February 12th, 2010

“Valentine’s Day” the movie opens today and I read an interesting blog on Care2.com that the movie greened up the set for this very red holiday. The Warner’s Bros. film used hybrid vehicles instead of limos. It also used “solar-powered and biodiesel generators, reusable water bottles, composted food waste, [etc.]”

The blog went on to say that Warner Bros. carbon audit results showed that 21,000 plastic bottles were eliminated, and 67 metric tons of CO2 emissions.

Warner Bros. is hoping to lead the way toward a “green filmmaking trend.”

Read it: http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/hollywood-valentine/#comment-451115.

First the Senate and Now the House Attempts to Block the EPA

Friday, February 5th, 2010

First Senator Lisa Murkowski (R) Alaska and a group of Republican Senators and 3 Democrats filed a disapproval resolution to stop the EPA from regulating emissions. She patronized the EPA’s power to do that calling it “back door climate regulations.” The really unnerving thing about her disapproval resolution is that coal lobbyists wrote it. Her belittlement of the EPA’s power flies in the face of the 2007 Supreme Court ruling, and the Clean Air Act, which is law, passed by congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court not some “back door climate regulations.”

Now we have congress people Ike Skelton and JoAnn Emerson (MO), and Colin Petersen (MN), filing a bill in the House to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. It seems Ike has decided all by saying “Simply put, we cannot tolerate turning over the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to unelected bureaucrats at EPA. America’s energy and environmental policies should be set by Congress.” And further on stated: “This legislation is a guarantee that the EPA will not use its rapidly-expanding powers to enact policies which members of Congress know will create untold hardships in the rest of the country, especially in Missouri.”
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/mo04_skelton/StopEPA.html.

Does Ike know congress approved the Clean Air Act long ago? His alluding to the EPA’s rapid expansion is a real fallacy. The EPA was full of industry people during the Bush Administration and ineffective. Purging the EPA of lobbyists and restoring its power that was upheld by the court in 2007 is not a rapid expansion but a return to normalcy. Funny he wants to overlook that as intolerable all of a sudden.

What he as the people’s representative should find intolerable are representatives both in the house and senate that continually dismiss the law of the land, especially longstanding laws meant to protect the public and allow industry to dictate what should or shouldn’t be followed. Oh, Murkowski flat out admitted to the coal industry’s involvement with her disapproval resolution, but Ike, JoAnn and Colin weren’t without big industry backing either. As house.gov states: “Reps. Skelton and Emerson were joined by representatives of Missouri’s Rural Electric Cooperatives, Missouri’s Municipal Utilities, the Missouri Corn Growers, and the Missouri Soybean Association, among others.”

The Campaign to Stall Global Warming Policy

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

I’ve been saying for a while to look for the money motivation behind skeptic’s opinions regarding global warming and a current article in Rolling Stone by Jeff Goodell, titled: “: “As the World Burns,” documents an outright campaign to distort, create a chasm, and stall progress for a greener economy and jobs, jobs, jobs in America. Who would do that? No one stands to gain on the path we appear to be taking more than big oil and coal. We should have done a real heads up and kept them up when Exxon Mobil earned 40.1 billion dollars NET in ONE quarter while we paid high dollar at the pumps. They’re using it to stall everything. The world should wait while they get one last good year in. Then it will be another good year, and another…All the wealth in the country belongs to 1% of the citizenry. That should tell us something.

The cover of the same magazine was quite blunt in trying to tell readers something about the forces preventing progress in the U.S. It was titled in big red letters: “You Idiots! Meet the Planet’s Worst Enemies.” It’s simply white hat, black hat here. Say for instance, I’m a billion dollar corp., and I see that the worldwide competition and sentiment is moving toward cleaning up our acts relative to global warming. I remember Cheney’s 1% doctrine too. It was good enough to reason a war in Iraq. In the context of global warming the 1% doctrine dictates that if there is a 1% chance that we are exacerbating global warming, then we have the duty to combat the source. I see brand new innovation for fuels that looks promising like algae, methane, recycled grease, etc., and I’m reminded that America has always been a leader in innovation. We nurture that type of progress here. As this corporation I have great wealth, clout, and access to the technical ability to choose to:

A. Invest in new innovation while I’m still at the top of the game in the fossil fuel sector. By doing this I insure that I will always be a corporation associated with progress and prosperity well into the future, where I will probably advance and adapt over and over in step with newer technologies as they come up. I am still employing workers in the fossil fuel industry but am setting up programs for job transition in the future. Eventually, I phase out the polluting industry, and become totally vested in the new, and maintain my fortune while continuously providing jobs for old and new employees.

B. Use my money and clout to block progress not only to a cleaner way of life for the world, but also block the chance for all those young, eager, innovative minds to create. I would also block new jobs in a brand new green economy. Heaven forbid anyone finds out these jobs do indeed help boost the economy, and prices for alternatives begin to fall. I would continue to offer only those jobs in polluting industries that ravage the land, air, and water in my own country and eventually the world, as well as, expose workers to an unhealthy working environment. I might also affect the health of those that live in close proximity to my operations. In the end, the world moves forward and I am so far behind. But who cares, I’m still rich.

There you have it, black and white. We see what road corporations are choosing to take The very next article after “As the World Burns” is even better. It’s titled: “The Climate Killers,” and names the top 17 polluters/deniers “derailing efforts to curb global warming,” by Tim Dickinson.

After reading this, the question people should be asking themselves is, “What would have happened if the technology boom was continually stalled? What if there was a massive campaign by old school America to keep us on corded phones forever? All the Silicon Valley innovation, jobs, and even the stock market associated with it would never have been realized. We could use another immediate surge like that in the U.S., and it’s got green written all over it.

Take the time to read the articles. They are important, as the U.S. seems to become ever more increasingly ruled by corporate America

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633532/as_the_world_burns.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers.

Murkowski Amendment to Thwart EPA Was Written by Coal Lobbyists; Come On!

Monday, January 25th, 2010

While all eyes were on Haiti last week, Senator Murkowski (R) Alaska, 35 Republicans, and 3 Democrats from fossil fuel states introduced a disapproval resolution to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Murkowski likes to patronize the EPA’s power to do so calling it “back door climate regulations.” http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/murkowski-seeks-thwart-epa-emission-regulations-again.
.
What??? Stop right there. Massachusetts vs. EPA in 2007 was an epic decision by a conservative Supreme Court to get the ball rolling to curb CO2 emissions. All was passed by congress. The public was well aware of it. A Washington Post article from 2007 is a reminder that the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush EPA for NOT regulating emissions. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200487.html . So how is standing legislation reduced to “back door” politics in just 3 years?

The “back door” tactics should be assigned to Murkowski. She openly stated her concerns for her state being ravaged by climate change in a speech in 2006, but by the end of 2009, Murkowski’s standards changed dramatically. An article titled: “Lisa Murkowski proposes to fiddle while Alaska burns” puts it nicely. http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/21/lisa-murkowski-fiddle-while-alaksa-burns-epa-regulation/.

Ignoring Alaskan fires are just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. Last week ended with 12-20 ft. waves around Ventura, CA, while mudslides wiped out homes in an area still expecting 3″ of rain along with coastal funnels, 14 tornadoes ripped through Texas in the dead of winter, ice storms ran throughout the Midwest snapping power lines, and the south was expecting heavy storms with possible tornadoes. And I blogged that the earthquake that crushed Haiti was a big one, part of a series of activity that went up and down our California coastline. Yeah it’s a real good time to waylay the EPA from acting to regulate emissions that may be exacerbating our climate problems.

Murkowski fails to connect the dots. But why? My guess is that the coal industry can buy more time for permits and be exempt from future regulations once permitted because another Republican senator changed the language in the Senate Climate Change Bill that would allow these exemptions. Covering the coal industry is key here although Murkowski likes to upset the little guy arguing that EPA regulations will hurt small industry, farms, and such in bad economic times. Gaining momentum depends on getting the little guy on her side. The big guys are already there.

More than just there, two lobbyists for the coal industry wrote Murkowski’s amendment. Murkowski admitted to it. http://www.greendaily.com/2010/01/18/murkowski-partnered-with-big-coal-and-oil-lobbyists-to-attack-th/ .

Lovely. The media hardly mentions Murkowski’s attempt to usurp the judicial branch’s directive, and consequently deny the power of the Clean Air Act, let alone let us know that the coal industry wrote this legislation. This comes on the heels of our Supreme Court’s ruling that corporations can openly support or oppose candidates running in our legislature.

Heck between writing legislation and buying the candidate, I’d say the wealthy (corporate America) have indeed taken over.

More:

http://www.themudflats.net/2010/01/20/tell-murkowski-to-give-back-the-money/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheMudflats+%28The+Mudflats%29.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/us/23memo.html.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2010/01/21/blanche-lincoln-mary-landrieu-join-republican-effort-to-make-the-environment-worse/.

The Bush EPA http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/07/another-epa-administrator-bites-the-dust/.

Haitian Earthquake Reminder We Should Listen to Science

Friday, January 15th, 2010

Two scientists from Purdue University took seismic readings in Haiti along the Enriquillo Fault and warned Haitian officials back in 2008 that the island was vulnerable to a major earthquake of 7.2 magnitude. Pressure was building along the fault line. The problem is the warning didn’t come with a timeline and even if it did, a country like Haiti was highly unlikely to be able to move and coordinate fast enough to shore up important buildings like government, hospitals, and schools. Nothing was done.

Over the past decade in the U.S. both science and intelligence sometimes took a backseat to ideology and well, ideology. If Haiti is any indicator, we need to start paying very close attention to a majority of scientists when it comes to climate change. Worldwide, climate is going to get decidedly worse and in a shorter time span than first expected. It’s too bad that contributing to Haiti now in a time of crisis should have been an effort 2 years ago to aid Haiti in an effort at prevention. What’s pouring into Haiti now could have made a life saving difference had it come back then.

Are future catastrophic climate events going to be more of the same, disastrous? Hopefully we will begin to listen to the majority of scientists worldwide that climate change is real and we need to address it now. Haitian officials were concerned but with so many other problems the warnings of disastrous events that may or may not happen soon were put on the back burner. Sound familiar? That pot boiled over and the ramifications have the whole world involved now.

I know some people are still surprised by the earthquake prediction in Haiti. While reading an article on blackpoliticalthought.blogspot.com I noticed someone wrote in a comment: “It does amaze me that scientists can predict this sort of geological activity. Wish they could have provided money for the Haitians to build up their infrastructure to be able to better sustain the shaking.” Some people are not surprised at all. They see this as a precursor of things to come.

And some people just don’t care that scientists were able to predict this earthquake. There is a disconnect of thought between science-earthquake-Haiti and science-climate disasters-world. For instance, right now Senator Lisa Murkowski is gearing up for a vote on January 20th that would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants and other polluters in the U.S. in 2010. According to Credo: “The vote — on an amendment to a must-pass bill to lift the debt ceiling — will remove the EPA’s enforcement funding and power so big polluters like the coal industry can ignore the Clean Air Act.”

See what I mean?—DISCONNECT. Down the road and looking back at this 2-20-10 vote initiated by Murkowski, hopefully we won’t recall that nothing was done.

Keep environmental progress moving forward. Tell your senators to vote to keep the Clean Air Act in tact. http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/cleanairactvote/?r=5161&id=7318-1623890-tjVWFyxhttp://act.credoaction.com/campaign/cleanairactvote/?r=5161&id=7318-1623890-tjVWFyx

http://blackpoliticalthought.blogspot.com/2010/01/scientists-warned-in-2008-of-major.html.