Activities Sept. 19th thru 24th

Climate Activists to Converge on NYC for UN Summit, People’s Climate March (9/21/14) and More

From an Article by Anastasia Pantsios, EcoWatch.com, September 9, 2014

For one week surrounding the UN Climate Summit 2014, the focus of the environmental movement will be in New York City. A dizzying array of events will take place, sponsored by hundreds of nonprofit organizations, businesses and religious groups all demanding immediate climate action.

One of the most high-profile events of the week that will capture widespread international attention is the People’s Climate March on September 21st.

Busloads of marchers are coming from all parts of the country and international participants are expected as well. With more than a thousand partnering groups, including nonprofits, religious groups, advocacy organizations, schools and businesses, tens of thousands—maybe more—could show up, with expectations of this event being the largest climate action in world history.

March organizers hope to impress on the world leaders who will be meeting at the UN on September 23rd that there is mass public demand for action on climate change and to take that level of public engagement to an even higher level.

“We believe that world leaders will only act (or be able to act) on climate change when everyday people express the desire, and create the political mandate for them to do so,” said organizers of the march. “Therefore, we aren’t opposed to this summit happening, and it is generally a good thing for heads of state to discuss climate change. We don’t have blind faith that the summit will solve the crisis either. We think that organizing, mobilizing and building social movements are ultimately what changes the course of history.”

While the UN Climate Summit on September 23rd is not open to the public (although it will be broadcast for public viewing), the schedule of activities is so dense that finding time to sleep that week might be a concern for any activist heading to NYC.

There are many small preliminary events including sign-making parties, rallies, meetings, concerts, forums and social gatherings. There are conferences, lectures, meetings and other events, both public and invitation only, listed at Climate Week NYC.

Here is a small sampling of some of the events going on in NYC that week:

NYC Climate Convergence from Sept. 19 – 21, an alternative to the UN Climate Summit. It will feature speakers like The Shock Doctrine author Naomi Klein, workshops, teach-ins, music and more.

Join Riverkeeper and Waterkeeper Alliance as part of NYC Climate Convergence Sept. 20 at St. Johns University in Room 112 from 10:45 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. Hudson Riverkeeper Paul Gallay will moderate an all-star panel of leaders and experts on the climate-water nexus.

Religions for the Earth Conference: This event will gather together more than 200 international religious and spiritual leaders at the Union Theological Seminary.

Solutions Grassroots Tour: Nightly music and theater performance and film screening at the Irondale Center in Brooklyn. Sept. 22-26, it’s “an interactive music, theater and film event that motivates towns to adopt renewable energy solutions.” Watch the trailer here.

People’s Climate Justice Summit hosted by the Climate Justice Alliance will feature workshops, interactive panels and other activities to provide an alternative voice to the UN Climate Summit. This event is at the New School University Auditorium & UN Church Center from Sept. 22-23.

Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) is hosting “Women Leading Solutions on the Front Lines of Climate Change” with an international panel of women leaders at the UN Church Center on Sept. 22. The following day it’s co-sponsoring “Rights of Nature and Systemic Change in Climate Solutions” with the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature on Sept. 23.

Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting: The theme of this four-day event, Sept. 21-24, is “Reimagining Impact” and it will stress the effectiveness of various climate strategies. It features plenary sessions, breakout groups, workshops and a star-studded lineup of speakers including President Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Matt Damon.

The UN Climate Summit itself will be broadcast online Sept. 23. “The Summit will consist of an opening ceremony; announcements by heads of state and governments; announcements by the private sector; and the launch of new initiatives that address key action areas by coalitions of governments, businesses and civil society organizations,” according to the UN. The Secretary-General will summarize the outcome of the day at the closing ceremony.”

See also: China and UK Join Forces on Climate Change Agreement

James Hansen: 2C Temperature Rise Would Be ‘Disastrous’

This 2C Rise is 3.6 Fahrenheit Degrees

From Article By Tim Radford, Climate News Network, December 3, 2013

Governments have set the wrong target to limit climate change. The goal at present—to limit global warming to a maximum of two degree Celsius higher than the average for most of human history—“would have consequences that can be described as disastrous,” say 18 scientists in a review paper in the journal PLOS One.

With a two degree Celsius increase, “sea level rise of several meters could be expected,” they say. “Increased climate extremes, already apparent at 0.8 degrees Celsuis warming, would be more severe. Coral reefs and associated species, already stressed with current conditions, would be decimated by increased acidification, temperature and sea level rise.

The paper’s lead author is James Hansen, now at Columbia University, NY, and the former NASA scientist who in 1988 put global warming on the world’s front pages by telling a U.S. government committee that, “It’s time to stop waffling so much and say the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.”

Humanity and nature—“the modern world as we know it”—are adapted to what scientists call the Holocene climate that has existed for more than 10,000 years—since the end of the Ice Age, the beginnings of agriculture and the first settlement of the cities.

Warming of one degree Celsius relative to 1880–1920 keeps global temperature close to the Holocene range, but warming of two degree Celsius, could cause “major dislocations for civilization.”

The scientists study, uncompromisingly entitled Assessing ‘Dangerous Climate Change’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature differs from many such climate analyses because it sets out its argument with remarkable directness and clarity, and serves as a useful briefing document for everyone.

Its critics will point out that it is also remarkably short on the usual circumlocutions, caveats, disclaimers and equivocations that tend to characterise most scientific papers. Hansen and his co-authors are however quite open about the major areas of uncertainty: their implicit argument is that if the worst outcomes turn out to be true, the consequences for humankind could be catastrophic.

The scientists case is that most political debate addresses the questions of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but does not and perhaps cannot factor in the all potentially dangerous unknowns—the slow feedbacks that will follow the thawing of the Arctic, the release of frozen reserves of methane and carbon dioxide in the permafrost and the melting of polar ice into the oceans. They point out that 170 nations have agreed on the need to limit fossil fuel emissions to avoid dangerous human-made climate change.

“However the stark reality is that global emissions have accelerated, and new efforts are underway to massively expand fossil fuel extractions by drilling to increasing ocean depths and into the Arctic, squeezing oil from tar sands and tar shale, hydro-fracking to expand extraction of natural gas, developing exploitation of methane hydrates and mining of coal via mountain-top removal and mechanized long wall-mining,” the scientists write.

The scientists argue that swift and drastic action to limit global greenhouse gas emissions and contain warming to around one degree Celsius would have two useful consequences. One is that it would not be far from the climate variations experienced as normal during the last 10,000 years, and secondly that it would make it more likely that the biosphere, and the soil, would be able to sequester a substantial proportion of the carbon dioxide  (CO2) released by human industrial civilization.

Trees are, in essence, captive carbon dioxide. But the warmer the world becomes, the more likely it is that existing forests—the Amazon, for example—will start to release more CO2 than they absorb, making the planet progressively even warmer. Therefore the scientists make a case for limiting overall global carbon emissions to 500 giga-tons rather than the 1,000 billion tons in the two degree Celsius rise scenario.

“Although there is merit in simply chronicling what is happening, there is still opportunity for humanity to exercise free will,” says Hansen.

Fact Checking ALEC’s Attacks on Ohio’s Renewable Energy Standards  

From the Article By Jeff Deyette, Union of Concerned Scientists, EcoWatch, October 11, 2013

The Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee is considering changes to the state’s successful renewable energy and energy efficiency policies.

Members of the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee heard testimony this week on two bills that would roll back Ohio’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards. Backed by fossil-fuel funded special interest groups and their political allies, these proposals would undermine Ohio’s emerging clean energy industries and make the state even more dependent on coal and natural gas.

It is no coincidence that the primary sponsors of these bills are both members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Last year, the Washington Post,Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and others exposed ALEC’s scheme to deploy model legislation written by the Heartland Institute, and backed by deeply flawed and soundly refuted analyses from the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, that would repeal renewable electricity standards (RES) now in place in 29 states.

ALEC, the Heartland Institute, and the Beacon Hill Institute all come to the table with dubious records of spreading disinformation to sow doubt about the scientific evidence on climate change and the consequences of tobacco use. Each has received funding from fossil fuel and tobacco interests.

So far, their campaign to roll back RES policies across the country has failed. Policymakers in states like Kansas and North Carolina exhibited sound judgment in rejecting the disinformation and repeal attempts. Likewise, Ohioans should be skeptical of claims about the Buckeye State’s clean energy policies coming from these groups, and the politicians who repeat them.

Senate Bill 34: Repeal Ohio’s Renewable Electricity Standard?

Leading off at the latest Senate Public Utilities Committee hearing was Senate Bill 34. Introduced by Sen. Jordan (R–Ostrander), this bill would repeal Ohio’s requirement that 12.5 percent of the state’s power supply come from renewable energy by 2025. It is a retread version of the RES repeal bill Sen. Jordan first introduced in 2011, which was hailed by ALEC, but ultimately tabled by the Committee.

In his rhetoric against the RES, Sen. Jordan routinely cites a Beacon Hill Institute economic analysis that ALEC distributed to Ohio lawmakers. But the Beacon Hill Institute’s Ohio RES study is deeply flawed in many ways, including that it exaggerates the costs of renewable energy technologies and ignores the benefits of wind and solar power. The study even makes the incredulous claim that variable wind power “could actually increase pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.”

The opposite conclusion was reached in a recent analysis by an economist at the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), the agency responsible for overseeing the RES. That study found Ohioans are already benefiting from renewable energy through downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices and reduced emissions. PUCO’s modeling also showed that the more frequent ramping up and down of fossil-fuel plants to accommodate renewable energy resources did not materially affect overall emissions reductions.

Unfortunately, the Beacon Hill Institute deliberately ignores real world evidence about the innovations and tools that make it more efficient and cost-effective to ramp up renewable energy, while maintaining a reliable and cleaner power system. Instead, they effectively cut and paste the same false claim in study after study, spreading misinformation about the environmental benefits of renewable energy.

It is telling that the Beacon Hill Institute grounds its claim in the questionable findings of a single Colorado-specific report from 2010, also funded by fossil fuel interests. Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest utility with extensive experience generating and integrating wind power, promptly debunked the study’s findings. And more recently, a National Renewable Energy Laboratory study on Colorado and other Western states found that any increase in fossil-fuel power plant emissions to accommodate renewable energy is small, and more than offset by overall reductions in carbon emissions and other air pollutants.

Senate Bill 58: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothes

The second bill considered at the hearing was SB 58, introduced by committee chairman Sen. Seitz (R–Cincinnati), a current member of ALEC’s board of directors. In recent testimony, Senator Seitz stated that what he really wants is to repeal Ohio’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards. Having failed once already to achieve this goal, his new tactic with SB 58 is a more subtle approach, but would still effectively gut both standards.

In explaining his change of position—Sen. Seitz voted for the original clean energy standards in 2008, along with nearly every member of the Ohio House and Senate—and current rollback attempt, Senator Seitz argues that “[i]n 2008, we projected that there would be a steady increase in electricity demand. That has not happened.”

That’s true, but using electricity more efficiently has always been a central goal of the Ohio’s clean energy law, which requires utilities to achieve cumulative energy savings of 22 percent by the end of 2025. In fact, Ohio’s four regulated utilities achieved nearly 3.1 million MWh of savings through energy efficiency from 2009 to 2011, as PUCO Chairman Todd Snitchler told Sen. Seitz’s committee in March. The fact that the energy efficiency standard is working effectively seems like a spurious reason to be against it.

Sen. Seitz deserves credit for accurately acknowledging that the costs for wind and solar power have declined in recent years. But he also contends that wind and solar “fuels remain far more costly” than “fuel generated from conventional sources, and uncompetitive with natural gas.” In reality, strong evidence shows that wind and solar can protect consumers against fossil fuel price volatility. Once built, the “fuel” to power wind turbines and solar panels is free; whereas natural gas and coal prices are subject to dramatic swings. In fact, coal and natural gas prices projected to increase by 59 and 119 percent, respectively, in the wholesale electricity market serving Ohio.

Putting all of Ohio’s energy eggs in the fossil fuel basket ignores the myriad risks of dependence on coal and natural gas, including risks to public health and climate change. Sen. Seitz recently invited climate deniers from the Heartland Institute to testify on Ohio’s clean energy standards, who used the opportunity to falsely characterized natural gas as “essentially an emissions free-power source.” As with any fossil fuel, burning natural gas for electricity results in the release of carbon dioxide, and thus contributes to global warming, making it a far less attractive from a climate solutions standpoint than renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Time to Move Forward With Ohio’s Clean Energy Future

Periodic review of any policy makes good sense. But such reviews need to be based on sound and transparent analysis from credible sources, not ideological attacks and disinformation from special interest groups funded by the very industry that stands to benefit from dismantling the policy.

A rigorous review of Ohio’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards would find that these policies have been effective, affordable and are delivering benefits to consumers and the environment. They should be strengthened—not repealed or diluted.

A recent survey shows that a majority of Ohioans supports requiring utilities to provide 20 percent their electricity from renewable energy (well above the current 12.5 percent requirement). That would be a good step forward. First, let’s make sure Ohio does not become the first state to choose the fossil fuel industry’s fiction over clean energy facts.

Climate Change Conversations⁽¹⁾

Commentary from Officials of the American Chemical Society , Science Magazine, April 5, 2013

Submitted by S. Thomas Bond, Professor of Chemistry (Retired), Lewis County, WV.

“Climate change affects everyone, so everyone should understand why the climate is changing and what it means to them, their children, and generations to follow,” they say. They encourage scientists to engage groups they are already a member of, such as neighborhoods, school boards, religious groups, service clubs, political organizations, to “engage in respectful conversations on climate change and on the policies and actions individuals, communities, and nations might take to mitigate and adapt to what is happening to our planet.” This seems good advice for informed non-scientists, too.

The evidence is overwhelming. “The concentrations of greenhouse gases are higher and increasing faster than any time in the past million years. The average temperature of Earth is increasing, ice is melting, oceans are acidifying, and extreme weather events are more frequent. Human activities, principally the combustion of fossil fuels, are a major source of greenhouse gases and a major driver of climate change.”

Some of the U. S. institutions and societies, including the National Academies, Environmental Protection Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the American Institute of Physics  have prepared materials that are on the web, useful for the public understanding of these issues.

Last year the American Chemical Society released a toolkit on greenhouse gases atmospheric and planetary warming, and the Earth’s energy balance, among other topics. the toolkit is elementary, but suitable to an introduction to more advanced topics. Implicit in this resource is the message that the world much make adaptations to changes that have already occurred, and that reducing emissions is required to avoid a warmer planet.

The take home for those of us that are not daily engaged in the practice of science is that the overwhelming evidence for climate change cannot be denied. WE need to inform ourselves and discuss it in exactly the same groups the authors of this editorial suggest for scientists – most people never come in contact with working scientists, but take their convictions from those they consider better informed than themselves. Speak up!

(1) Science Vol. 340, April 5, 2013, page 9.

(2) Bassam Z. Shakhashri, Distinguished Chair for the Wisconsin Idea, Professor in the Department of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin. President of the American Chemical Society in 2012.

Jerry A. Bell, Emeritus Professor, Department of Chemistry, Simmons College, Boston, MA. Chairman of the ACS Presidential Working Group on Climate Science.

 ”The Marcellus Shale Documentary Project”  is opening October 11th at Filmmakers Galleries in the Oakland section of Pittsburgh.

Horizontal hydraulic-fracturing or “fracking” is the process used to break up rock layers with a pressurized solution of water to retrieve the natural gas deep below. Some people have health and safety concerns partly because of that video. Others are embracing the possibility of jobs and money flowing into their depressed communities.

In Western Pennsylvania, Marcellus Shale drilling is the defining industry of our day, similar to the historical impact of the steel industry and coal mining industry that came before. It affects our economy, environment, politics and daily lives. Naturally, opinions are strong.

A new photography exhibit — “The Marcellus Shale Documentary Project,” opening October 11th at Filmmakers Galleries in Oakland — looks at both sides of this passionate, polarized debate.

Laura Domencic, director of Pittsburgh Center for the Arts and curator of the exhibit, was eager to show how photography fits into the discussion.

“Our intention is to inject some thoughtful observations to help facilitate a community dialogue,” says Ms. Domencic. “Arguments can be made on both sides of this debate and this project is not about taking one of them.”

The show features more than 50 photographic images from six regionally and nationally renowned photojournalists: Noah Addis, Nina Berman, Brian Cohen, Scott Goldsmith, Lynn Johnson and Martha Rial.

The validity of the work in this show is established not by the credentials of the artists, including two Pulitzer Prize winners. Instead, she explains, it is the level of intellect, sensitivity and skill with which they approach their work.

“Good documentary photographers understand they have a dual and occasionally contradictory responsibility. First, to represent the truth … second, to create empathy for their subjects, to draw the audience closer to the individuals being photographed,” says Mr. Cohen, who co-created the exhibit.

“The Marcellus Shale Documentary Project” exhibit will be on view through January 6th. The project includes accompanying lectures, a 220-page book and an online archive. Visit the Marcellus Shale Documentary Project online at http://www.the-msdp.us/.

Climate Central, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization was formed in 2008 with seed money from The Flora Family Foundation and development funds from 11th Hour Project. The founding board members were Jane Lubchenco, Professor of Marine Biology and Zoology at Oregon State University; Stephen Pacala, Professor of Biology and Director of Princeton’s Institute for the Environment; and Wendy Schmidt, founder of The 11th Hour Project. Headquarters is in Princeton, NJ and an office in Palo Alto, CA.

The climate crisis isn’t just some far-off threat, it’s a clear and present danger. Therefore, Climate Central has created a unique form of public outreach, informed by our own original research, targeted to local markets, and designed to make Americans feel the power of what’s really happening to the climate. The goal is not just to inform people, but to inspire them to support the actions needed to keep the crises from getting worse.

A report from Climate Central entitled “Surging Seas” as been prepared and is posted on-line.  This report can be summarized thusly:

Global warming has raised sea level about 8 inches since 1880, and the rate of rise is accelerating. Scientists expect 20 to 80 more inches this century, a lot depending upon how much more heat-trapping pollution humanity puts into the sky. This study makes mid-range projections of 1-8 inches by 2030, and 4-19 inches by 2050, depending upon location across the contiguous 48 states.

The increases are likely to cause an enormous amount of damage. At three quarters of the 55 sites analyzed in this report, century levels are higher than 4 feet above the high tide line. Yet across the country, nearly 5 million people live in 2.6 million homes at less than 4 feet above high tide. In 285 cities and towns, more than half the population lives on land below this line, potential victims of increasingly likely climate-induced coastal flooding. 3.7 million live less than 1 meter above the tide.

This report and its associated materials, based on two just-published peer-reviewed studies, is the first major national analysis of sea level rise in 20 years, and the first one ever to include:

• Estimates of land, population and housing at risk;
• Evaluations of every low-lying coastal town, city, county and state in the contiguous U.S.;
• Localized timelines of storm surge threats integrating local sea level rise projections; and
• A freely available interactive map and data to download online (see SurgingSeas.org).

In order to avoid the worst impacts from sea rise, we all need to work to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases (mainly methane and carbon dioxide) and work to diminish the remaining danger by preparing for higher seas in coastal cities and counties everywhere.