Global climate change drives sea-level rise, increasing the frequency of coastal flooding
Those words did not appear in the above-linked USGS press release — though they were in the press release’s draft.
“It’s a crime against the American people,” Neil Frazer, a geophysics professor at University of Hawaii at Manoa and one of the study’s co-authors, said of the line’s removal and of other efforts to limit scientific communication from federal agencies. “Because scientists have known for at least 50 years that anthropogenic climate change is a reality.”
He added: “The suppression of this information is a scandal.”
There are numerous stories of interest and concern here:
The Team Trump anti-science censorship is real, ongoing, insidious in effects, and happening almost certainly in the shadows.
Note what is missing in this @USGSNewsClimate report on sea level rise and coastal flooding https://t.co/i8slvgWJEj
— Brad Johnson SUBSCRIBE TO HILLHEAT.NEWS (@climatebrad) May 18, 2017
I then shared the material with a range of climate scientists and communicators alongs with people specifically focused on sea-level rise (SLR).
From rather well-known, extremely knowledgeable, PhD expert, strong (even strident) climate hawk, the note:
The release is not shy about talking about sea level rise and SLR projections. It’s certainly possible that USGS edited out a mention of climate change, but it equally possible that it was just a incidental omission.
After all, the actual study directly comments on climate change in its first paragraph:
Just the second and third words from the abstract of the study that page is reporting on. https://t.co/TmUJMSAy89
From a Director of a significant scientific institution, the note included (removing some potentially identifying information):
I don’t believe that there is any Trump influence on their writing and believe that they are all first rate scientists who are probably more focused on the immediate science of future sea-level rise rather than diving into climate change issues.
Neither of these people are anything close to Team Trump devotees.
Both are serious experts — in science and even in sea-level rise.
Both are well-aware of Bush Administration science censorship.
Both have expressed concerns about Trump’s lack of science knowledge and Team Trump’s anti-science passions/science denial.
Yet both were reticent, in private communication, to even suggest that they thought this was a situation of censorship.
They knew the ‘first-rate scientist’ authors and did not want, I suppose, to see the insidious hand of climate-denial censorship impacting those ‘first-rate scientists’.
Here is a situation where
those “first rate scientist” authors were (see that Post story) willing (anxious even) to talk publicly about the censorship.
Note that their jobs are likely not on the line and, within their professional environments, they might actually ‘gain’ due to speaking out publicly rather than risk ‘losing their jobs’/hurting their status.
the censorship was obvious simply through reading the piece —
just reading the press release made one wonder why ‘climate change’ wasn’t there in a sentence or two for context about SLR.
the censorship did not impact the actual substance —
that SLR is accelerating and will lead to more coastal flooding.
Not hard to imagine situations where:
People fear that they might lose their jobs and are reticent about speaking out;
The censorship is more insidious and hidden, harder to discern; and,
The censorship impacts the actual substance and conclusions, turning science into pseudo-science or actual science denial.
As to the above interlocutors, on sharing The Washington Post confirmation of the censorship, one hasn’t (yet…) responded and the other got back to me with a simple:
You were right!
I really wish that I had been wrong.
RELATED:
Art can be powerful in communication, see Hands from the Sea about a Venice sculpture highlighting Sea-Level Rise along with a discussion of SLR issues.
UPDATE: Is this ‘how’ the Post reporter found the key to getting the details?
So my husband came home this week pretty shaken up. And if any of you know Patrick, he is the most mellow guy ever. It takes a LOT to rile him.
To back up a second, let me just say (in case you don’t know), Patrick works for the US Geological Survey. In other words, he’s a federal employee.
Part of the year, Patrick drives an ATV along our California shorelines, taking data points of the sand. He and his team also drive jet skis in the surf zone in a grid-like pattern, taking more measurements of the sand below the water. He has a team of a dozen employees and is the research director of the Climate Impacts program.
So let’s get to what happened this week. A paper where Patrick wrote about his findings published. Nothing new there. He and his co-authors have been writing papers for over a decade, monitoring the shores so that we as a community can better protect the beaches and structures along the water (including airports, sanitation facilities, etc., etc.). But along the way, in his pursuit to monitor beach patterns, there’s been a distinct finding that sea level is rising and beaches are eroding–not a belief, but an actual fact he and other scientists from around the world can confirm through scores of data.
Keep in mind, Patrick’s been at the USGS for almost 14 years. Which means, he’s worked beneath the Bush, Obama, and now the Trump administrations. But here’s what’s different.
Never in the history of his career at the USGS has the government insisted on removing a phrase from a press release for one of his papers. Basically, the press release would NOT be released by the government with the phrase still in there.
What was the phrase you ask? Here’s the sentence:
“Global climate change drives sea-level rise, increasing the frequency of coastal flooding.”
The Department of the Interior removed the phrase “Climate change.” The first thing I though of was censorship. This administration doesn’t believe in climate change, so they removed the language from the press release. But that wasn’t the most disconcerting thing.
For every major paper Patrick’s authored or co-authored, he’s received dozens of phone interviews, and been interviewed on NPR and through local news stations to talk about the findings. Because this is important stuff, right? And reporters want to share with the community new findings so we can be more prepared as a community.
How many reporters called him after the government said they sent the press release to hundreds of reporters for the NATURE paper, one of the worlds biggest journals on the environment?
According to the topline data from a recent poll, 89% of the Virginian poll respondents support “Renewable energy projects, such as solar and wind power” … 69% strongly. The press release from the (self-proclaimed, astroturf) Consumer Energy Alliance (“a front group for the energy industry that opposes political efforts to regulate carbon”) somehow failed to mention this figure, something truly reflecting “consumer energy” preferences and desires, but instead focused on highlighting lesser and weaker support for projects like Keystone XL and Virginia pipelines. As to the Atlantic Coast pipeline, the CEA asserts that “Fifty-four percent support the project in Virginia.” (Note that a poll last fall found overwhelming opposition among Virginians to this pipeline.) In another inexplicable piece of absent information, CEA didn’t highlight that just 20% of those are ‘strongly support’ (a drop of 5 points since their previous “poll”).
While CEA’s breathless press release has some misleading elements, leverages (skews?) the polling to (in essence) threaten politicians (in essence, in likely misreading of the material from this somewhat skew poll: politicians watch out: voters will punish you for not supporting polluting energy projects (without, of course, the polling discussing pollution and having wording supporting the polluting energy projects (somewhat)), and is uncertain as to its overall validity, lots of interesting items throughout:
Yet another poll showing voters of all types STRONGLY support renewable energy projects.
Neither candidate for Governor in the Democratic Primary shows over 50% name recognition.
Dominion’s involvement doesn’t seem to change support for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Support for coal-fired electricity has significantly fallen since a 2015 poll, with a significant increase in opposition to coal-fired electricity (including a 9 percent jump in ‘strongly oppose’).
In terms of true skewing of the situation, the poll has multiple elements that I — as someone focused on energy issues — wished were true but simply don’t pass ‘the sniff test’. Here is the starkest example:
At least 80 percent of voters in each state say [energy] issues are very or somewhat important in their voting decisions.
Really? Really? Does anyone think that “energy”, in a governor’s election in Virginia, will influence the voting choices of 80 percent of the voters in any meaningful way?
Looking ahead, how important are energy issues in terms of how you will vote in the Gubernatorialelectionthis year? Are they very important, somewhat important, not very important, or not important at all in determining how you will vote?
The reported response: 31% “very important” and 52% “somewhat important”. Color me skeptical (to the extreme) Assuming absolute good will from an astroturf group seeking numbers to enable pressuring politicians, perhaps that “very important” and “somewhat important” response rate is an artifice of asking the question after a series of questions on — surprise, surprise — energy issues. Not even necessary to call this push polling to see the questionable nature of that result.
In short, while there might be some ‘interesting’ material to take from this poll results, make sure to take those results/that ‘interesting’ material with a grain of salt (and the press release with many grains of salt).
So I'm signing this directive to build a better future for our children, create good paying jobs for families & keep Va #1 on climate issues pic.twitter.com/rROvSmBSjM
While that tweet generated some ridiculing from clean energy activists, McAuliffe’s tweeting assertion raising the question: What does it mean to be “#1 on climate issues”?
Which States Lead on Renewable Energy Policy and Progress
How might we measure this? Here are some potential items:
Carbon Emissions per capita?
Energy use per capita?
Energy Efficiency? (home? business? car?)
‘Climate-aware policies’?
Industrial pollution?
“Leading the charge on renewable energy”?
Or …
Thus, a quick search for ‘what measurements’ might exist to help illuminate the question of who is “#1 on climate issues”. Essentially, across the board, Virginia is middle-of-the-pack (or toward the bottom) in results, , and policies to address climate change.
Table 1: Various Measures of States related to “Climate Issues”
Azraq refugee camp’s solar farm, Adeeb al Bassar, Jordan.
The 2-megawatt solar photovoltaic (PV) plant will allow UNHCR to provide affordable and sustainable electricity to 20,000 Syrian refugees living in almost 5,000 shelters in Azraq camp, covering the energy needs of the two villages connected to the national grid. Each family can now connect a fridge, a TV, a fan, have light inside the shelter and charge their phones,
Prior to this installation, the Azraq camp had infrequent, unreliable, and often simply inadequate electricity from the (over)stressed Jordanian grid. This 2 mw solar far turns this equation around and could well mean a net exporting of electricity to the grid.
Paid for with an Ikea grant, the solar farm eliminates the UNHCR’s electricity costs and thus frees up resources for meeting other humanitarian needs.
And, as (okay, sadly, if …) the refugee camp is dismantled when it is no longer required, these solar panels can continue clean electrons into the Jordanian grid.
Lost, somewhat, in the celebration of this milestone (first 100% clean electricity refugee camp) is the real power of this and ability to act in the future:
Refugee camps are typically ‘off-grid’ or in high-stressed environments with very high cost and high-pollution electricity (such as from diesel generators). Solar pv — which is dropping rapidly in price and increasingly cost competitive in straight out competition with fossil-fuel sources — can deliver electrons for a fraction of the cost of a diesel generator.
Like with the U.S. military in deployed operations, the straight dollar cost isn’t the only concern: one has to get oil to those diesel generators. Installing solar panels, by definition, reduces the amount of transportation required to support a refugee camp. And, in places with uncertain (or non-existent) security situations (think Somalia, Darfur, inside Syria, …), reducing that transportation doesn’t only save money but saves lives.
Solar pv is a natural with distributed grids — including those, like refugee camps, which can rapidly emerge and expand.
Now, one needs to be careful in calling this ‘green’, as it a truly ‘green’ refugee camp would be highly resource (energy and water) efficient, provide clean (including for example, low-VOC) housing that can be transitioned into long-term housing, have agricultural activities (from container gardening to developing permaculture in areas around the camp) to employ & feed the refugees, etc, etc …
The Azraq deployment is a good step forward and should be lauded as such. However, solar pv should be standard kit, not press release material, for the UNHCR.
Comments Off on The Power of Refugee Camps going Clean EnergyTags:solar · UN
May 19th, 2017 · Comments Off on When it comes to boxed vs bottled water, choose the tap …
Internet advertising … any who goes into those internet tubes encounters (far too much of) it. Most of the time, it just slips past us though there are those items that jump to the attention. Yes, I — like 100s of millions of others — have bought things due to such advertising. (Wow, advertising works … ) But, that advertising is far from always welcome and, at times, is just counter-productive.
Here is a short post on just one of those ‘counter-productive’ moments. A banner ad on a site promoting how ‘Boxed Water is Better’ caught my attention.
Upfront
Simple truth
Go with tap water.
Filter if you wish/must, but GO TAP!
That ad sent me to Boxed Water is Better with the promises for planting trees in exchange for online purchases and social media discussions/references. (Wonder whether this post will get two trees planted.) WOW! Isn’t that great, rather than those plastic bottles you can have ‘natural’ containers for your water. Wonder the web and isn’t hard to find stenographic-like posts touting the benefits of ‘boxed water’.
Let’s be more accurate in the description:
Boxed water is not nearly as bad as glass-bottled water and, in many (perhaps even most) circumstances, won’t be as bad as plastic-bottled water.
In extremely few circumstances (exceptions are horrid situations like Flint … with exceptions even to that) is real analysis likely to find that ‘boxed water is better than (decently filtered) tap water.
However, “Boxed Water is Not Nearly As Bad” isn’t that powerful an advertising slogan, able to carve into the >$100B/year bottled water market.
Richard Clarke served the United States in multiple roles, gaining his greatest fame due to his harsh criticism of the Bush White House for ignoring/down-playing his urgent calls for attention to Al Qaeda in the months leading to the 9/11 attacks. Clarke has served the nation in other ways, including a series of thoughtful, illuminating and (extremely well-written) books on terrorism, intelligence, cyber-warfare and, the latest to be released in a few weeks, on learning how to bring to the fore Warnings from experts before catastrophe hits.
Millions of lives lost to catastrophes – natural and man-made – could have been saved by the advance warnings of experts. Can we find those prescient people before the next catastrophe strikes? …
In Greek mythology Cassandra foresaw calamities, but was cursed by the gods to be ignored. Modern-day Cassandras clearly predicted the disasters of Katrina, Fukushima, the Great Recession, the rise of ISIS, and many others. Like her, they were ignored. There are others right now warning of impending disasters, but how do we know which warnings are true?
This is the story of the future of national security, threatening technologies, the US economy, and possibly the fate of civilization.
Certainly, there are many Cassandras when it comes to climate change’s realities and threats. Cassandras routinely ignored by the American mass media (to a greater rather than lesser extent) and ridiculed by Trump and his GOP supporting cast.
This Energy BOOKSHELF moment, however, is not about the power of Clarke’s recounting of the realities of what he faced (and learned from) government service nor the insights in his non-fiction analytical works but another aspect of his work: his fiction. Clarke is, again, an eloquent writer who knows how to communicate. He has turned his attention, at times, to fictional works which, occasionally, I’ve taken the time to read. At the library, the other day, I bumped into Pinnacle Event and grabbed it for a week-end ‘escapism’ read. Little did I know, when leaving the library, that I was carrying what might be the most powerful and insightful CliFi (Climate Fiction) book that I have read to date.
NOTE:
SPOILER ALERT: after the fold details that reveal key plot elements.
Pinnacle Event is an excellent ‘thriller’ … reading ‘after the fold’ will lessen the book’s dramatic impact.
A watched pot never boils is a truism that speaks to a reality: Humans have a difficult mentally registering slow change (how do you register your child’s growth day to day) even as the change impacts our lives in tangible manner (buying clothing to replace that they grew out of).
Sea-level rise is one of the most predictable of climate change impacts. We know the seas are rising and we know that there will be more sea-level rise. Yet too many seem oblivious to the obvious. Around the world, too many in the private sector, government, and the public are failing to plan for sea-level rise’s foreseeable consequences. We need to leverage communication tools, of all sorts, to change this equation: to motivate action to mitigate climate change (to slow/reduce the future sea-level rise in the decades/centuries to come) while sparking investment to adapt to the inevitable rise in the years and decades ahead. And, art has a role to play — from the subtle to the in-your-face signal. This Venice sculpture is just that sort of messaging:
According to Halcyon Gallery, “The hands symbolise tools that can both destroy the world, but also have the capacity to save it. At once, the sculpture has both a noble air as well as an alarming one – the gesture being both gallant in appearing to hold up the building whilst also creating a sense of fear in highlighting the fragility of the building surrounded by water and the ebbing tide.”
Venice is a floating art city that has inspired cultures for centuries, but to continue to do so it needs the support of our generation and future ones, because it is threatened by climate change and time decay,’
For Virginians aware of the Commonwealth’s tremendous risks from climate change and (potentially even more) tremendous opportunities for prosperity through climate action, the past few days had some real buzz. Governor Terry McAuliffe was going to make a climate-related announcement at Alexandria ReNew?. That event has come and past.
Okay, I’ve read … and reread … and reread Executive Directive 11 and return to Wendy’s question: Where’s the beef?
A year ago, well into his third year, Governor McAuliffe issued Executive Order 57 which, well, kicked the can down the pike on climate change directing a year-long study to figure out what Viriginia should do to address climate change. The study count rises even as sea level increases. Yes, worthwhile to have study but substantive action is urgently required. At the end of that year process, what did McAuliffe order: some more study and (potential) regulation development. Here is the substantive directive material:
1. Develop a proposed regulation for the State Air Pollution Control Board’s consideration to abate, control, or limit carbon dioxide emissions from electric power facilities that:
a. Includes provisions to ensure that Virginia’s regulation is “trading-ready” to allow for the use of market-based mechanisms and the trading of carbon dioxide allowances through a multi-state trading program; and
b. Establishes abatement mechanisms providing for a corresponding level of stringency to limits on carbon dioxide emissions imposed in other states with such limits.
2. By no later than December 31, 2017, present the proposed regulation to the State Air Pollution Control Board for consideration for approval for public comment in accordance with the Board’s authority pursuant to Virginia Code § 10.1-1308.
Okay, yes, it is worthwhile for Virginia government officials to develop draft regulations that would enable Virginia to participate in carbon trading that can be put forward for public comment.
Hmmm … read that previous sentence … are you asking “where’s the beef”, too? This legitimately merited ‘buzz’ and a special signing announcement?
No, this isn’t Governor McAuliffe announcing
A deal with Dominion Virginia Power for constructing a 500 megawatt offshore wind farm along with the infrastructure in the Tidewater area to support the construction and operations of projects not just off Virginia but along the Atlantic coast — that would create economic activity, jobs, reduce electricity costs, improve energy resiliency, and, by the way, reduce (climate and other) pollution.
A green schools program that would boost Virginia educational achievement, improve the health of Virginians, create jobs, save money, and, by the way, reduce (climate and other) pollution.
The leveraging of the Volkswagen settlement money for sparking a transition to plug-hybrid electric and electric school and transportation buses throughout the Commonwealth that would dramatically reduce health-risks to students, improve educational performance, save money, and, by the way, reduce (climate and other) pollution.
Something … well … something tangible.
So I'm signing this directive to build a better future for our children, create good paying jobs for families & keep Va #1 on climate issues pic.twitter.com/rROvSmBSjM
With all due respect, Governor McAuliffe, Virginia is far from “#1 on climate issues” and, although I hoped your announcement this morning would move the ball forward in a tangible manner toward #1, Executive Order 11 won’t do much to move it in that direction.
Sometimes the jaw dropping moments break through the floor. For U.S. national security professionals (and, well, anyone associated with intelligence in the United States or any allies), Donald Trump’s blustering blabbering of extremely sensitive material to the Russians is causing lots of jaws to break lots of flooring. (Perhaps a good time to be in the floor repair business??) But, while he is really good at it, it is isn’t only Trump who causes jaws to drop.
Shared with me this morning was a paper ‘published’ by Omics Online (for a perspective re Omics and here) by its newly created (Dec 2016 first issue) “Environment Pollution and Climate Change” ‘journal’. This paper, “The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful Alternative,” led to multiple jaw breaking floor events in just a few moments. (Anyone know a good floor repair team?) With this item in a (claimed to be) ‘peer-reviewed’ journal, we have an excellent example of the proliferation of nonsense and the very sad reality of the need for thoughtful people to take the time and energy to refute that nonsense. To provide a perspective, someone just sent me this note:
Truth is at a disadvantage
Ok, I just looked at the paper. It is a joke right?
And, the ‘refutation’ challenge doesn’t only eat up time and energy … but creates the chasing the lie challenge. (Churchill’s adage, “a lie gets halfway around the world before the the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”) The lie remains there, to be counted in ‘peer-reviewed’ material, to be used/abused by unknowing knaves and deceivers alike, with the truth missed by the knave and knowlingly ignored by the deceiver.
The ‘duck and cover’ is rather popular, as the citizenry is enraged. Whether Trump’s corruption, the despicable approach to refugees and immigrants, Trump Care, #TrumpRussia, and/or … issue after issue is motivating ever more Americans toward outrage at the GOP’s outrageous malfeasance as exemplified by Donald Trump. Trump’s firing of FBI Director Comey is likely to lower further Trump and the GOP’s approval rating and make town halls even more toxic for Republican politicians.
The following video provides a snapshot of how climate change discussions are playing out in Republican townhalls across the country, with a very eloquent articulation of the issue at hand by the videographer, Peter Sinclair, as its conclusion.
Comments Off on Townhalls getting hot for @GOP PoliticiansTags:Energy
Neil Frazer, a geophysics professor at University of Hawaii at Manoa and one of the study’s co-authors, said of the line’s removal and of other efforts to limit scientific communication from federal agencies. “Because scientists have known for at least 50 years that anthropogenic climate change is a reality.”
