December 10th, 2011 · Comments Off on Urging Obama Administration to Action to Avert Death Warrant … “We Can’t Wait!”
President Barack Obama is correct: “We can’t wait.”
While he is correct, he (and his Administration) is failing — utterly failing — to turn this slogan into reality on the most critical issue facing his Administration, this nation, and the global community for the coming century: Climate Change.
At his election, based on his campaign words and his quick comments after the election about the importance of climate action, many focused on climate change mitigation and adaptation had real confidence of serious progress to come in terms of U.S. policy and the U.S. engagement in the world community on climate issues.
To be clear, whether CAFE standards or pushing ‘greening the military’ or ARPA-E or the Better Buildings Initiation or …, President Obama and his Administraiton have made important steps that represent a radical different course than what was the case with the Cheney-Bush team.
However, different is not enough, it is not enough against the enormity of the challenge and the severity of the risk(s).
In Durban, at this time, the United States seems to be standing with China and India against serious moves toward a near term binding international treaty to reduce emissions. To forestall to 2020 … or beyond … a serious treaty that would put international law at play to foster reduced global emissions meaningful enough to forestall truly catastrophic climate chaos. And, it seems evident that there isn’t another decade to play footsie with the concept of serious action. Reduced emissions from a massively fossil-foolish BAU (Business As Usual) to solely a moderately fossil foolish future aren’t enough.
As President Obama puts it: “We Can’t Wait …”
Without question, there are some who will assert that this diary’s title is hyperbole, who view “climate change” an issue for tomorrow’s concern, and who do not see how it might have a real impact on their (and, well, others’ lives). Climate change disruptions are (climate chaos is) already killing people. And, there is no question that the situation will worsen. The question is whether we, as a global community, as nations, as communities, as individuals will take serious action to minimize that coming damage and to increase the potential for a robust and desirable (by our standards … each of ours) human civilization at the end of this century.
For some perspective on the situation, two recent discussions by others:
After the fold is an email that Avaaz sent out to their US supporters. Here it is, reposted in full with permission. Climate change is a global challenge and perhaps our voices can help President Obama raise his ambitions and and save the Durban talks.
December 8th, 2011 · Comments Off on Durban: Putting the Dust into the Dustbin of History?
This guest post, from Heather Libby in Durban, South Africa, provides a window in thinking as to the gap between the negotiating halls and people suffering from climate chaos a few miles away, the gap between putting happy faces on a problem and choosing to address climate change in a way to reduce its catastrophic impacts.
Whatever happens, the next 36 hours will change the world.
The Durban climate negotiations dance on a wire. Sway but a little, and everything falls.
For the past ten days scientists, politicians, faith leaders, health leaders, artists and unions have formed an urgent choir calling on the negotiators to act. Our partners in the TckTckTck alliance have sung, danced, protested and marched. In solidarity, 400,000 (and counting) people worldwide have signed the latest Avaaz call to action urging the European Union, Brazil and China to take these negotiations forward.
And yet, here we are. Not much further than we started last week.
Over the past few days, I’ve traveled to speak to people directly affected by climate change. I’ve visited both the OccupyCOP17 assembly and the Kennedy Road informal settlement (home of the Abahlali base Mjondolo shack dwellers movement).
The faces of climate change do not take shuttle buses from pristine hotels. They do not sit in air-conditioned plenary rooms and eat catered food. As you can see in this video, their reality is much different.
These are the people who should be deciding our climate future. The ones who are unable to go to school when high tides flood their classrooms. Who watch as extreme drought turns their grasslands into deserts littered with desiccated carcasses.
They are starving. They are drowning. They are fleeing their homes, or being flooded out of them. They do not have the luxury of waiting to 2020 for binding emission targets.
It is easy to reconcile the act of waiting until 2020 in an air-conditioned hall. It is easy to vote against the Kyoto Protocol when you’ve never pulled your children out of the remains of your house after a rainstorm washed it away.
It is time to take the negotiations out of the convention centre and into the sweltering Durban summer heat. Instead of sitting in cool halls, let the delegates stand in the downpours expected on Thursday and Friday. Let them look Tambilo and her son in the eyes and tell them why they chose not to fill the Climate Fund.
There is still time to turn the Durban talks around. A deal by 2015 is still possible. For all 315,000 victims of climate change so far this year, I pray we end up on the right side of history.
And if not, forgive us.
Comments Off on Durban: Putting the Dust into the Dustbin of History?Tags:climate change · Energy
December 8th, 2011 · Comments Off on Energy Cool possibilities at EcoBuild 2011
Trade show spaces often have interesting surprises and value at conferences. Currently on through tomorrow in Washington, DC, EcoBuild America‘s trade show has been the source of intriguing leads and items every time I’ve visited. (Note, I was told that this is free to visit if all you wish to do is go to the trade floor space in the DC Convention Center.) Ecobuild’s trade space is often of value because the conference attendees are truly knowledgeable about issues related to building energy eficiency, design, and think in systems-of-systems terms often going beyond individual buildings to understand how campuses and communities work together. The people at the company booths are often senior with real technical knowledge. Thus, more than once, the truly interesting learning has been listening in or participating in conversations between attendees and a company’s technical director (or CEO or …) delving into a product’s implications, limitations, opportunities …
Here are several of the Energy COOL items / technologies / companies that I first encountered at this trade show floor which I hope to explore further in the coming weeks:
Climate Wizard is an Australian company claiming to have a path forward for a radical shift in the energy efficiency of air conditioning which, if you are not aware, is a substantial load (roughly five percent of total demand) on the electric grid (and, in fact, is even more important than the straight electricity demand suggests since cooling loads often drive peak power and thus drive building of additional grid capacity). Take a look at the image to the left. Recognizing that this is company’s measurement system at a trade show, that EER figure of 42.1 is simply, well, astounding. This is significantly higher than any air conditioning system that I am aware of on the commercial market (or, well, anywhere near Compare this with the U.S. government’s recommendation:
Look for a thermal expansion valve and a high-temperature rating (EER) greater than 11.6, for high-efficiency operation when the weather is at its hottest
The Climate Wizard is an “indirect evaporative cooler” which actually, according to the company, increases in efficiency with temperature increases.
According to conversations yesterday, while this is currently available only for large (commercial size) units the developing household unit should be priced in the range of current energy star air conditioners. With a reduction of energy use in the range of 70 percent even from energy star units for the same capital expenditure, Climate Wizard could create a radical shift in the opportunity to cool more efficiently even as Global Warming drives continued increased demand for air conditioning.
Kelix Heat Transfer Systems: The Kelix team has engineered a tube structure for geothermal systems that forces the fluid in the system to have greater interaction with the exterior of the pipe and, therefore, increases the thermal transfer for the same volume of fluid. This translates into, roughly, a 50 percent reduction in the number of bore holes required to support a geothermal system which has numerous advantages: reduced capital costs (drilling can be the majority of cost for a geothermal system) and reduced footprint (allowing facilities and homes with less open land to look to geothermal). E.g., lower cost install (that challenge of high up front cost for these long-term payoff systems) and smaller footprint leads to increased opportunities for installing the systems. Kelix’s business model is to partner with relatively few installers to help assure that they can provide training and maintain quality control to foster higher efficiency overall systems. (Kelix’s CEO, Eric Wiklendt, seems to be a very knowledgeable straight-shooter and I look forward to a chance for future conversations with him. Part of our conversation, for example, was ‘how many square feet per ton …’ and he essentially refused to answer with a strong explanation of why ‘this depends’. We also discussed the reality that HVAC loads vary greatly and that has a great impact on geothermal design. A home might be roughly balanced between heating and cooling while a hospital might require 27 times as much cooling as heating.) From Camp Pendleton in California to a GSA building in the middle of DC, Kelix systems are being installed and could help foster a growth in this path toward greater efficiency and lower total ownership costs for heating and cooling buildings.
Dryvit is a system to clad exterior walls with rigid insulation for insulation and a coating to match the look desired by the building owner (or, well, the home association rules). For retrofits of existing and homes and buildings, this looks to be a cost-effective path to address air leakage issues and insulation shortfalls with a quality (to choice) exterior look. Dryvit’s “outsulation” system is in (actually, around) some 400,000 buildings worldwide with a claimed average heating / cooling energy savings of above 20 percent.
Matrix Lighting (note: as of this moment, the website looks to be down) has developed a range of LED lights to cover the spectrum from replacing traditional screw-in bulbs, halogen spotlights, and incadescent tubes. In each, purchasers have the option of warm, cool, or daylight versions providing the path for purchasers to better match lighting quality against their preferences. While Matrix is part of the overall effort to drive prices down (targeting in the range of $10 on the shelf), more efficient lighting faces a very serious cost-to-buy vs cost-to-own challenge as, according to conversations yesterday, something like 70+ percent of home light bulb purchases are at grocery and convenience stores rather than a thought through purchase decision. Having a $10 bulb sitting next to a $0.50 cent bulb when someone is there, mainly, to buy a gallon of milk should suggest how serious an obstacle this represents.
Intus Windows These are extremely high-efficient windows that meet Passiv Haus standards (note that the other half of Intus is PassivHaus consulting). The claim: R values of 7 to 9 (short of the recommended R-13 value for wall insulation recommended in my area but, well, light years ahead of what I’m looking through right now — double glazed windows might have a R2 or R3 equivalency). Another claim of note: that their prices are competitive with anyone who is purchasing a reasonable quality (as opposed to builders’ grade) window with significant higher R values and (at least as a human, rather than measurement device can tell) essentially eliminating air leakage. Without realizing it, I’d seen the Intus Windows before as they are used in one of the most cost-effective Solar Decathlon projects, the Empowerhouse, which is being integrated into a DC community.
Of course, Ecobuild is really about thinking through systems and systems integration. Imagine …
A building built at lower cost due to using Dryvit Outsulation with
Intus windows maintaing high-insulation values and low air leading even in window space with
Matrix LED lighting reducing lighting energy demand (okay, already reduced due to daylighting design) with
Kelix Geothermal enabling lower cost geothermal systems to cover all the heating requirements, some of the hot water requirements, and a share of the air conditioning with
Climate Wizard handling a substantial share of the air conditioning load (addressing imbalance between a building’s heating and cooling loads).
Hmmm … those numbers would be interesting to run in terms of initial capital costs compared to ‘traditional’ building, energy demand (costs), and maintenance. I suspect that these would combine to provide a more attractive, comfortable, and cost effective facility.
And, for anyone making their way to EcoBuild, make sure to take some time outside the exhibit hall to contemplate the traveling exhibition: Smarter Living: The 2,000 Watt Society.
December 7th, 2011 · Comments Off on Green(ert) on energy issues? What course for the Navy?
In 2008, Admiral Gary Roughead, U.S. Navy, then Chief of Naval of Operations, established Task Force Energy and Task Force Climate (prior to the Obama Administration). Since then, Task Force Energy has provided a serious focal point for fostering changing Navy thinking and approaches to energy use and demand.
The Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, has established three core priority areas: acquisition (read shipbuilding) improvement and ‘reform’; unmanned systems; and energy. In October 2009, Secretary Mabus laid out five key “stretch” targets on energy issues that include significant attention to energy efficiency and targets for 50 percent of the Navy’s energy sourcing to be from ‘alternative’ sources by 2020 (Navy Energy Goals, pdf). The Department of the Navy (the Secretariat, the Navy, and the Marine Corps) has made serious steps forward across this agenda in the two years since along with garnering significant press attention along the way.
That announcement came in amid reading two key publications by the current (as of 1 October) Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert. The first, the “CNO’s sailing directions” (pdf), provides the public statement as to the CNO’s priorities and vision for the Navy under his stewardship. The second is an article in the December 2011 U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Navy 2025: Forward Warfighters, which provides the CNO’s vision as to the world the Navy will face 14 years hence and what that future Navy might look like.
While likely to have read these pieces with energy and climate in mind, the biofuel announcement assured that these were on the mind when reading these two publications. The CNO’s Sailing Directions and the Proceedings article are rather interesting reading from this lens. While the previous CNO (Roughead) , and the Secretary of the Navy has “energy” as one of his three focus areas, looking through these two critical leadership documents the only serious discussion of energy is this:
We also will maintain rotational deployments in the Middle East and Indian Ocean. In 2025 those forces—along with our forward-stationed patrol boats, minesweepers, and littoral combat ships—will deter aggression in the region. With our local Persian Gulf partners and international allies such as the United Kingdom and Japan, those forces will also help ensure the Strait of Hormuz remains open; oil will remain the world’s most versatile fuel and chemical feedstock.
While reading these two documents, the Department of the Navy announced its largest ever biofuels purchase within an intent that 50% of the Navy’s energy be from alternative sources by 2020. Even recognizing that these are just two documents and Admiral Greenert has talked about energy at places like the Naval Energy Forum, these are two critical documents about his vision for the U.S. Navy’s future and the absence of any direct discussion of energy sparked a question: Does the CNO’s failure to discuss energy issues in any substantive way and with the only energy comment in these two important documents a paean to oil (even if a basically accurate statement) suggest that he doesn’t view Monday’s purchase as a preview of where the Navy will be in 2025?
Too often, people point to statements and actions by civilian leadership to state “the military” thinks this or that about energy and climate issues. While the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) spoke of climate change as a national security issue, the QDR is always a highly political document driven by civilian (political appointee) leadership even with much uniformed influence. This often masks more conflicted (or even opposing) concepts and thinking within the uniformed services and leadership.
Consider the following parameters as circles in a Venn Diagram:
Wall Street Journal reader,
Fox News watcher,
Evangelical (Christian),
Educated,
Republican.
And, consider these within the context of views on and understanding of climate science:
The ‘educated’ is an interesting angle here. While educated Americans, writ large, are ready to recognize expertise and learn from it, highly-educated ideologues are far more likely to suffer from confirmation bias (engage in selective cherry-picking of evidence) to reinforce their ideological stance and are more likely to be certain of their position. (And, thus to be ‘denier’ than a true skeptic when it comes to climate change).
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that these parameters, put together, provide a very high likelihood that the person in question is a global warming science denier (or, as some might put it, suffers from anti-science syndrome).
Returning to the start of the post, the truth is that these bullets describe a notable share of the U.S. military officer corps with a meaningful share (higher, I believe although there is limited ‘polling’ data within the military to know this for sure, than the general public) falling into that global warming denier sweet spot. In my experience, a substantial portion of the U.S. military (and even more so within the retired officer community) is in a mental trap of being so extremely questioning of climate science to merit the term ‘denier’.
To be clear, this description (just as the Venn diagram) does not capture the totality of the U.S. officer corps. There are officers who could make Al Gore sound conservative when it comes to the Anthropocene Era. There are many seriously concerned about humanity’s impact on the climate and see serious impacts from this on future military requirements. And, there are many who are well-educated and deeply thoughtful and have taken the time to educate themselves with an open mind. As a matter of fact, one of the most effective speakers (to broad audiences) on climate change is such an officer. Rear Admiral Titley, head of the U.S. Navy’s Task Force Climate, started off a presentation in 2010
As I go around the country, I find that there are still a fair number of people who believe this is all some vast left-wing conspiracy, that climate change is a hoax. I am not going to ask for a show of hands or anything like that, but I hope to convince you that climate is in fact changing and that, at the global level, it is actually pretty simple to understand. …
I wish climate change were not happening, but it is happening, and unfortunately, as long as we keep accelerating the rate at which we are putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we in the Navy at least will need to continue to develop adaptation strategies and probably more aggressive adaptation strategies as the decades go on. I hope that is not true. I hope that either there will be some tremendous fix or we are missing a huge piece of the science, but until we see that, we are going to have to continue to plan based on what we now know.
Using “the” when describing any institution or society with millions of individuals creates challenges — even in an institution like the military which seeks to make the individual a servant of the whole. Thus, when it comes to “climate change” it is inappropriate to state that “the” military (if referring to the people) understands climate change even as major documents (like the QDR) address climate change as an issue of concern. On the other hand, it is inappropriate to state that “the” military are global warming deniers.
Admiral Titley’s studied and thoughtful presentations are strongly adapted for this difficult terrain. Understanding that significant portions of the military (of the Navy) are, at minimum, skeptical about climate science, Admiral Titley =addresses, directly, that there are those who deny climate change. He then, in a quite deliberate fashion, works his way though multiple ways of looking at the science in such a way that all but those must caught in confirmation bias will end up with him at the conclusion that a warming planet and projections into the future demand, at the minimum, that prudent military planners address these issues. And, then he turns to “plan(ning) based on what we now know”.
December 4th, 2011 · Comments Off on Post Watch: An airy (eerie) hole in wind coverage
The Washington Post, for too many decades, has been the ‘home-town’ paper. With the dead-tree edition at the breakfast table, the gaps and failures in coverage (and skewed editorial section) are too evident. Thus, many — many — posts re The Post leading to a decision to begin/maintain a “Post Watch” series when frustration (or, well, with good journalism — enthusiasm) leads to a blog post.
Today’s Washington Post has a small AP report “Winds still causing damage in L.A. area” (note: the story does not seem, in at least its exact wording, to be on the Post website). While noting that “unusually powerful winds” began hitting the L.A. area Wednesday, the story’s concluding paragraph explains them as “dry, seasonal gusts”.
Video uploaded by the Salt Lake City Tribune. Description: In this video, greenhouse coverings are torn off a business near Highway 89 and Fruit Heights, Utah. Gusts were recorded in excess of 100 mph and damage was extensive. (Hat Tip Capital Weather Gang)
Online, WashPost.com has more extensive coverage such as the Weather Gang’s Wind storm diminishing in West, but strong gusts linger in Southern California which noted that “Thursday’s Santa Ana blast, which one NWS official told the NY Times was unlike anything experienced in Southern California “in more than 10 years.” Also online, a longer AP story, Powerful winds topple trees, down power lines in California and across much of the West. As a sign of the severity of the conditions, this story notes that “winds reached 123 mph at a ski resort northwest of Denver and topped 102 mph in Utah. California, however, was the hardest hit, with more than 330,000 utility customers still without power late Thursday. The gusts were blamed for toppling semitrailers and causing trees to fall on homes, apartment complexes and cars.” This story, interestingly, contains this paragraph:
Bill Patzert, a climate expert with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, lives in Sierra Madre and, like hundreds of thousands of people across the region, lost power at his home. A heavy tree limb blocked his driveway.
Note that noting that “a climate expert” had “lost power at his home” was the only comment that I could find in Post coverage that provided any link between climate and the devastating wind storms …
Hmmm …
Yes. These are “dry, seasonal gusts” and, without question, winds and windstorms have existed on planet Earth for billions of years. Thus, winds and even “dry, seasonal gusts” are nothing new.
A new method based on global climate model pressure gradients was developed for identifying coastal high-wind fire weather conditions, such as the Santa Ana Occurrence (SAO). … analysis shows consistent shifts in SAO events from earlier (September–October) to later (November–December) in the season, suggesting that SAOs may significantly increase the extent of California coastal areas burned by wildfires, loss of life, and property.
We are seeing, globally, severe weather event after severe weather event, flooding to greet climate negotiators in Durban, South Africa, to massive windstorms knocking down forests in Europe, to 1000+ year Texas droughts to … Yet, consistently, reporters seem unwilling or unable to place these ‘events’ within the context of climate change and to provide windows on whether climate change might have a meaningful role in record-breaking events with some concept as to what the future might bring. (For example, the science is not in 100 percent agreement about climate change’s impacts on Santa Anna winds. Some work actually suggests decreasing impacts (media version; scientific paper version pdf).) To be clear, it is hard to state that any specific weather event (no matter how severe or unusual) occurred “because of climate change” but it is increasingly untenable to discuss such severe weather without some effort to understand how climate change is or could be a contributing factor.
Reporting without context is a failure in the 4th estate’s responsibility to provide for a more informed electorate.
After search lights pierced through fossil foolish interests misrepresentations re how Keystone XL pipeline likely wouldn’t create any net new American jobs, how the State Department mishandled the Keystone pipeline review (without, for example, paying serious attention to tar sand oil’s serious Climate Chaos implications, putting a single non-expert as “the” State Department employee on the review, and hiring companies intimately tied to pipeline interests to do the review), and how the pipeline’s highly polluting oil would likely end up going to China (rather than in U.S. McSUVs), the mounting protests and political implications surrounding the pipeline were able to push the Obama Administration into additional review process that will likely lead to a non-approval of this pollution-enabling project.
After that, Republican interests beholden to polluters went to work seeking paths to force through this pipeline — no matter what expert review found in terms of its negative economic, jobs, and environmental implications.
In the House, now, is an effort to legislate an end-run around expert analysis and full review of this project’s implications for American security.
As Terry explained that his legislation was intended to put the Keystone XL pipeline decision in the hands of the real experts:
Terry said FERC is better equipped than the State Department to handle the pipeline. “FERC is the expert agency in pipelines, pipeline safety, pipeline siting,” Terry said in explaining the effort to take away the State Department’s authority.
While there are many bizaare aspects of Terry’s legislation (it essentially says that a national decision should defer to the Nebraska legislature as “Terry told reporters Friday that Nebraska environmental regulators can complete an assessment of the new route within six months. FERC would then have 30 days after receiving the state environmental assessment to issue a permit.”), the real kicker is Terry’s assertion as to why this legislation action is appropriate. According to Terry, “FERC is the expert agency in pipelines …” According to FERC,
December 3rd, 2011 · Comments Off on Green Travel …?
One shouldn’t pretend that flying half way around the world to stay in an ‘eco-resort’ somehow merits a Gold Star for heroic climate mitigation action as guest poster Ban Nock explores
Green Travel … isn’t.
It is hard to think of any form of travel that isn’t harmful to the atmosphere, our ecosystem, and even the lands we travel to, in one form or another. All travel is a compromise, what I attempt to do is compromise the least while ranging further than I would be able to by foot alone. Even a bike or a boat was manufactured using energy to extract and process the various metals and plastics and shipped probably a long way.
Travel conjures up images of airports, passports, and palm trees in exotic locales. Without doubt the modern passenger jet is the most polluting form of transportation outside of the space shuttle.
photo by dsleeter 2000
December 2nd, 2011 · Comments Off on “We can’t wait …” President Obama’s $4 billion energy efficiency announcement(s)
“We can’t wait …” President Obama’s words as to a private-partnership set of building energy-efficiency investments that will total $4 billion are, sigh, ever-so-true across a huge portfolio of issues. And, well, let us be clear that this $4 billion is only a drop in the ocean of national requirements and opportunities even solely considering building energy efficiency.
When it comes to the public sector, according to President Obama:
“Upgrading the energy efficiency of America’s buildings is one of the fastest, easiest, and cheapest ways to save money, cut down on harmful pollution, and create good jobs right now. But we can’t wait for Congress to act. So today, I’m directing all federal agencies to make at least $2 billion worth of energy efficiency upgrades over the next 2 years – at no up-front cost to the taxpayer. Coupled with today’s extraordinary private sector commitments of $2 billion to upgrade businesses, factories, and military housing, America is taking another big step towards the competitive, clean energy economy it will take to win the future,”
Note that “no upfront cost”. Rather than spending $ now to save $$$$$s for the years to come, the reality of the no investment mentality is that private corporations will be coming in via ‘energy performance savings contracts’ to execute energy efficiency projects and then share (at quite high profits) in the financial savings. With (some of) the taxpayers’ representatives too obstinate and obtuse to understand the value of investment, the taxpayers are sacrificing too high a share of tomorrow’s savings to avoid the required upfront investments.
In a rational world, we would be borrowing significant amounts of money at the incredible low interests rates to invest in infrastructure — notably in improving buildings (not solely energy efficiency) — to foster a stronger economy and pay back these investments with financial savings (such as due to reduced utility payments) and increased economic activity fostered by the jobs created and the commerce flourishing with more robust infrastructure.
President Obama, however, isn’t facing a rationale world in terms of The Village’s commentators and too many members of Congress. Thus, how to foster increased economic activity and reduced governmental costs without taxpayer investment?
Sigh, “We can’t wait …” and incrementalism is far from what is necessary, but we should applaud this $4 billion announcement.
Full press release after the fold.
Perspectives in reading the press release:
As one reads the highlighting of businesses, this fits with the UMW framing re energy efficiency, clean energy, and climate mitigation.
As a native Washingtonian, weaned on morning and evening newspapers, The Washington Post is my hometown journal and has been (for too many decades) a key part of my window on the world. Over the decades, however, that window has dirtied and darkened to distortion on critical issues to the point that I (and, well, many others) have to evaluate constantly whether maintaining a WashPost subscription is an intelligent and, well, even ethical thing to do. There are several driving factors that have skewed the balance toward a continued subscription.
My children often struggle with each other for access to Sports (to read about the local teams, even with frustration over inadequate coverage of soccer and women’s sports) and Metro (to check the weather to see whether they can argue for shorts in winter). To see one’s children impassioned over reading news is something that any parent would welcome.
This is the ‘hometown’ paper and thus provides a window on life that reliance on the web or substitute an alternative paper simply wouldn’t provide.
Among those ‘stars’ are reporters Juliet Eilperin and Andrew Freedman. Eilperin has a long history related to reporting on environmental issues, ability to put real knowledge and expertise developed over time to work in support of informing readers about complex environmental issues. Freedman is a rising star in the Capital Weather Gang who brings an understanding of climate science to the table amid meteorological discussions.
Even stars, however, have dark spots and two traditional journalistic dark spots when it comes to climate science reporting appeared in Eilperin and Freedman articles 28 November.
This often masks more conflicted (or even opposing) concepts and thinking within the uniformed services and leadership.