New version of Donate Recycle Reuse (DRR) document just updated.

 

Find out easily where to Recycle just about everything in the Rochester, NY area.

Donate Recycle Reuse (DRR) Version 30 (Updated June 02, 2011) Check out this special resource for recycling opportunities for the Rochester area. This "Donate Recycle Reuse" list by one of your neighbors makes it easy to recycle in our area. It's a work in progress so, send Jeanette your additions or corrects make sure that next discarded item doesn't go in the landfill. For questions and ideas about this page contact Jeanette jdztechw@rochester.rr.com

Warm winter days in Rochester, NY and the danger of knowledge gaps

 

As I write it’s seven in the morning on February 1, 2012 and fifty degrees outside. Yesterday, it was well into the fifties and sunshine. It’s not an anomaly; it’s been warm most of January, warm in the sense that insects were buzzing about at times. How many other plants and animals have been fooled into thinking spring has come I cannot say. But we can say we haven’t got much snow:

“So far this season, we've had a little more than 25 inches of snow, which is more than 31 inches below normal.” (February 1, 2012) No indications of more snow in winter that isn't | Democrat and Chronicle | democratandchronicle.com

Of course, here in the US it’s unfashionable to even entertain the notion that there is a link between unusual weather and the predictions of Climate Change—which by the way do predict that we will get more precipitation in the winter and spring with the likelihood that it will be rain. We will also get droughts towards the end of summer and early fall. And while the majority of climate scientists will venture that unusual weather is what Climate Change suggests, many must push back.

The media especially must include that linking quirky weather with Climate Change must be accompanied by many who don’t think this to be true. This inability for the media to ‘get’ Climate Change has gone on for twenty years now since Climate Change first hit public consciousness. It’s called objective journalism, where all news stories about Climate Change must have a balance somewhere in the middle of pandering to the fossil fuel industry and science. Those who are willing to stand up and say that extreme events and Climate Change are related are said to have taken the ‘plunge.’

Texas Heat and Drought Caused by Global Warming, NASA's Hansen Says | InsideClimate News Temperature data shows the Texas heat wave wouldn't have occurred without warming, Hansen claims. Others aren't ready to draw such a definitive conclusion. For three months last summer, temperatures in Texas soared higher than at any time in recorded history, and the state is still coping with the most expensive drought in its history. But can the 2011 Texas heat wave be attributed to global warming? Most scientists are careful not to link specific weather events to climate change trends, but NASA's James Hansen and two colleagues from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University have taken that plunge. They've gathered data they say shows that the 2011 Texas and Oklahoma heat wave—as well as a deadly Moscow heat in 2010—were "a consequence of global warming because their likelihood was negligible prior to the recent rapid global warming." (January 31, 2012) | InsideClimate News

Still it must all be very unsettling to many to see the grass getting greener and the snowplows a rare sight in January, even for those who don’t understand and don’t want to understand how our climate is changing. It’s got to be weird for folks to be doing stuff in the winter that they would usually be doing in the winter:

Ice Fishermen Undeterred By Warmth “January's final day marked the fourth time of the month where high temperature exceeded 50 degrees according to the 13WHAM Weather Authority.” (February 1, 2012) - 13WHAM.com

It isn’t that a lot of folks don’t enjoy the warm weather, we do. It’s that feeling down deep in one’s gut that we’ve mucked with a system far out of our control. Most of the Climate Change studies coming out now include ‘knowledge gaps’ where it is acknowledged that much of the information that we need to know about how our environment works even without Climate Changes stressing it is missing. For example: What is the actual health of our major rivers (like the Genesee River that runs through Rochester, NY) without Climate Change coming?

With Climate Change there are a lot of unknown knowns and there are a lot of unknown unknowns. And, while many might think that because we don’t know something is good, i.e., that ignorance is bliss, it’s never been true in our evolution. The danger of a lion stalking an early human did not disappear because the lion darted behind a bush—suddenly it became much more dangerous because of the knowledge gap.

In your face Climate Change for the Rochester, NY region: Gardening changes.

 

There a many, many Likely Changes coming to the Rochester, NY region because of Climate Change. But because of the relatively slow nature of Climate Change it’s often easy to deceive yourself that it is not really happening. (I say ‘relatively slow nature of Climate Change’ because only from our human daily awareness outlook is Climate Change proceeding slowly; from a geological standpoint Climate Change is hurling itself upon us with frightening rapidity.) You look around Rochester, NY now and you feel a very warm, wet winter that certainly haunts the skiing, skating, ice fishing, and snowmobile businesses—and those who grew up with colder winters with more snow. Is all this the new normal for January?

Yet, even with the insects buzzing around in January there is no proof that this warm winter is a direct effect of Climate Change. It’s complicated, but only for those who haven’t been paying attention to the most important issue of this century.

There are far too many folks who don’t ‘get it’ on Climate Change because their political party doesn’t want them to ‘get it’ or a zillion other loony reasons. There may be some who actually like this warm weather where they don’t have to shovel and where for decades they’ve been holing themselves up in their homes until spring arrives. Secretly, they must be thinking to themselves that this warming might be a good thing—for them.

However, there is one phenomenon that cannot be ignored by even the staunchest Climate Change deniers, some who have helped the fossil fuel industry confuse what the world knows about the laws of physics and heat and sun light and greenhouse gases. That phenomenon is the change in growing seasons. If you depend on growing stuff in our area and continue to believe that your region’s climate is not warming up, you’re going to have problems. You’re going to be planting the wrong stuff at the wrong time:

Gardening Map Of Warming U.S. Has Plant Zones Moving North : The Salt : NPR It's official: Gardeners and farmers can count on warmer weather. If that's you, it might be a good time to rethink those flower and vegetable beds for this year's growing season. That's the word from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which released a new version of its "Plant Hardiness Zone Map" this week, the first update since 1990. The color-coded zones on this map of the United States are widely used as a guide for what perennial flowers will survive in a particular area, or when to plant your vegetables.  (January 26, 2012) Environment : NPR

When you see stories like this, where a major US department is changing the growing season maps, it’s got to put shivers down your spine. Not because you now have to take the trouble to actually check the maps before you plant seeds, but because of the larger implications that Climate Change is happening. This is what the Climate Change denier really fear: Climate Change is package deal—like evolution. It’s a re-framing of the way you understand reality. When you ‘get it’ on Climate Change, you have to understand the whole deal, because everything will be changing, not just planting schedules. It’s like when you sign up to join the military, you didn’t just get a really neat uniform—you’ve made a major commitment that you cannot walk away from.

That’s the way it is with Climate Change and the media. You cannot keep something as big as Climate Change quiet and expect that the deniers will be able to spin every story their way. At some point, because of the myriad effects of Climate Change, there will be at least one description of the changes going on due to our atmosphere warming up where you find a news item and go: “Holly Mackerel!, it’s true!”

I think this growing season map by the U.S. Department of Agriculture is going to be that moment for some people. Gardening is the most popular outdoor activity in the United States. Who wants to look like an idiot planting things at the wrong time? How do you explain to yourself that when it comes to planning seeds in your garden Climate Change is true, but when you shop, plan for your children’s future, vote for the next president, and buy a house that may soon be a flood plain that it’s all hogwash?

Climate Change is happening and it is the lens from which we must view all human activity in the future—how we plan our cities, plan our transportation and telecommunications infrastructures, protect our fresh water, and much, much more.

President Obama mentions ‘Climate Change’ in his State Union Address

 

Last year President Obama avoided using ‘Climate Change’ in his State of the Union Address and focused on clean energy. This year the President did mention Climate Change, but not in a good way: “The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change.” 2012 State Of The Union Address Enhanced Version | The White House#transcript

The President’s bowing to the power of the ‘chamber’ when he should be leading the country on Climate Change is disproportional to the concerns coming from our country’s own climate assessments. For example, this report that just came out this month from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with support by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies minces no words on the scale and immediacy of the Climate Change problem.

“Our climate is changing, and these changes are already impacting the nation’s valuable natural resources and the people, communities, and economies that depend on them (see Chapters 1 and 2). The observed changes in climate, in turn, have been directly correlated to the increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere, which have set 5 in motion a series of changes in the planet’s climate system. Far greater changes are already inevitable because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time. Even if further GHG emissions were halted today, alterations already underway in the Earth’s climate will last for hundreds or thousands of years. If GHG emissions continue, as is more likely, the planet’s temperature is projected to rise by 2.0 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end 10 of the century, with accompanying major changes in extreme weather events, sea level rise, and acidification of our oceans. The pace and scale of these kinds of changes are expected to have major impacts on our natural resources and the communities and economies that depend on them.” From the Preface of NFWP Climate Adaptation Strategy

This means more powerful than the physics that is the underpinning of Climate Change is the extreme end of the Republican Party that doesn’t understand Climate Change science—probably because it threatens their ideology that less government is better and the free market can solve all problems. Both of which have been proven by history not to be true and threatens our existence.

But there you are, without leadership from the US President, addressing Climate Change remains a series of ad hoc solutions that won’t solve the problem.

One of the ad hoc items is drilling for natural gas in our country, which is a clear and present danger in New York State.

Hydrofracking gets a boost in President Obama's speech WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's decision to support natural gas drilling on federal lands is being hailed by supporters of hydraulic fracturing in New York. Obama's comments in Tuesday's State of the Union speech "should send a message to all the folks back home that even the president has vetted this and we need to move forward together," said Republican Rep. Tom Reed of Corning. In his speech, Obama said America's natural gas reserves could meet the nation's energy needs for 100 years and could provide 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.  (January 26, 2012) Democrat and Chronicle

Yet, despite the President’s rhetoric natural gas is still a fossil fuel that is helping to warm our atmosphere and there are a lot of environmental concerns that have not been answered yet.

We can applaud the President’s desire to remove the billions in subsides the fossil fuel gets to give clean, renewable energy a chance, but that probably won’t happen. It’s a nice thought anyway.

“Every budget President Obama has submitted to Congress since 2009 has called for chopping subsidies for oil and other fossil fuels in the neighborhood of $4 billion. Each time, it has gone nowhere. The response from the Senate and the House isn't expected to change after Obama presents his newest budget in early February. Once again, it will likely die on Capitol Hill.” (January 26, 2012) Obama's Latest Energy Blueprint: Will Congress Go Along? | InsideClimate News

And we are encouraged by the President’s promise of clean energy:

Obama: 'I Will Not Walk Away From The Promise Of Clean Energy' President Obama called for more domestic oil and gas production in his State of the Union address, saying that "a future where we're in control of our own energy" is within reach, where the nation's security and prosperity would not be so closely linked to unstable parts of the world.  (January 26, 2012) Environment : NPR

But at the end of the day, today, we are very puzzled by the overwhelming evidence that Climate Change is happening and our absolute inability to address it in a manner that would actually affect something so incredibly vast as our atmosphere.

It looks hopeless, given our present political climate, given our media’s unwillingness to hold the presidential candidates to the fire on Climate Change, and given our short-term desire for what appears to be (but actually isn’t) cheap energy. But I may be wrong.

Got ideas on how we should solve Climate Change? Make public comment to NFWP.

 

How important are nature’s services (one of them being LIFE) to you? The Public Review Draft of the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy is now available for public review and comment. You have until March 5^th, 2012 to submit comment via mail, web, or in person. Tell it to The National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy.

NFWP Climate Adaptation Strategy "The Public Review Draft of the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy is now available for public review and comment. To ensure that we are able to consider your comments, we must receive them by March 5, 2012. You can submit your comments through the web, by mail, or in person. Learn how to submit your comments here. Public workshops will be conducted at several locations around the country to provide additional opportunities for public comment and discussion of the draft. Please visit our Public Workshops page for more information. In addition, a free, public online web conference or webinar will also be held. Learn more and sign up here. "

It sounds daunting to not only get your head around how our entire planet’s climate is going to change, let alone trying to figure out what to do about that. It’s complicated. For example, what’s the best way for “reducing the negative impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, plants, and the natural systems upon which they depend.”

I hear your pain about the complexity of it all. Who would have thought that besides getting an education that is almost impossible to afford, get a house, put kids through college, and have time left over to save the planet? But that’s what it has come to. Our politics, economy, and our media have left us almost null and void on being good stewards of our planet, but what choice do we have? Our planet is warming up and very few beyond 350.org are doing something on a scale big enough to affect our planet’s climate.

So, It’s up to you and me.

Need some background on Climate Change because there are some key concepts in science that allude you? Do what I’m doing; take this free online course (complete with tests and labs) from the University of Chicago on Climate Science. It’s fun and you’ll learn a lot.

Open Climate Science 101 “Three thousand non-science major undergraduates at the University of Chicago have taken this class since 1996, and learned the science behind the forecast for a human influence on Earth's climate. The story combines physics, chemistry, biology, and Earth and atmospheric science.”

There’s no environmental freight to throw overboard; it’s a Fracking delusion

 

Environmental issues are riddled with examples of why our environmental infrastructure must remain intact for us humans to have a sustainable future. I mean intact in the way that 4 billion years of biology and evolution on this planet has fit every little piece of our environmental puzzle together resulting in our specie’s appearance and survival. Deep ecology recognizes that our environment is not just about us. Take biodiversity for example. If we carve up our environment for our particular immediate needs, we threaten our environment’s ability to rebound after a disaster—say extreme weather. A disease could rip through our monocultures, like the potato blight, and leave our agriculture crippled. Allowing other plants and animals to survive gives our environment a cushion against a complete collapsed when things go awry.

If we continue to shape our environment to exactly the way we want it, that is, create a state where we want fresh water to drink, water to use as a drain for all our waste, and then even more water for Fracking, what will we do for water during an extended drought? These water deprivation periods, even in NYS, will strain our ability to provide water for hydroelectric generation, wells, some municipal water reservoirs, and irrigation for our crops—even without the demands the Fracking industry will require if we lift the moratorium on horizontal drilling for natural gas. Droughts will come more often as Climate Change shifts our hydrology cycle to more precipitation in the spring in the form of rain and more incidents of drought towards late summer and early fall. This isn’t just an idle threat, as most climate change reports that include the American Northeast state this general precipitation pattern for our state.

This is pertinent as we consider Fracking in our state. Apparently, some folks think Fracking is something we can back out of if things go wrong. There must be a feeling out there, by a sizeable portion of our population, that we puny humans can’t really do anything to affect the overall health of our environment. Much has been said about Nature’s resiliency, that Nature when abused somehow comebacks and heals itself, like when you get a scratch on your arm and in a few weeks you’re as good as new.

Nothing of the kind happens in our actual environment. When you change the environment, you change the environment and everything in it has to adapt or die. Sometimes these environmental changes are slight and we don’t notice them, like a big rain storm, when things seemingly come back to something like it was—except some soil has washed away never to be seen again, and some branches and trees are killed. We don’t usually notice the effect of a big rain if plants and trees that died get replaced. When the rains settle, and enough remains intact, we don’t notice the changes. But it isn’t the same. Things have changed. Really, you cannot step in the same river twice.

It’s a dangerous illusion to believe that Nature is somehow adjusted to suit us humans, and no matter what we do things will just spring back when we stop doing bad things—like cramming Fracking fluids into thousands of miles of natural and unnatural fissures. How we deceive ourselves must go something like this: Many of us tend to think of our environment like the sick, elderly lady who just needs to stop all her bad habits to get well:

“Mark Twain tells of a doctor at the bedside of a very sick, elderly lady. The doctor told her that she must stop drinking, cussing, and smoking. The lady said that she’d never done any of those things in her entire life. The doctor responded, “Well, that’s your problem, then. You’ve neglected your habits.” Twain added: “She was like a sinking ship with no freight to throw overboard.”She Was a Sinking Vessel with No Freight to Throw Overboard « Quote Investigator

That’s a delusion. There is no environmental freight to throw overboard. Everything living is part of the stuff keeping us alive and keeping the machinery of life going. Every single organism at every single minute has to adapt to existing conditions or it perishes. Creatures, like the dinosaurs, ruled the planet for 200 million years but it only took a fraction of that time to wipe them out by the conditions probably caused by a ten-mile sized meteor that fell to earth. (If it wasn’t for this strange interstellar anomaly, dinosaurs, not us New Yorkers, would be Fracking with our water.)

If we screw up our NYS environment with Fracking, we may or may not be able to adapt to the changes, along with everything else coming down the pipe with Climate Change. Nature is not predisposed to ‘right’ itself when we make bad decisions so we can live uninterrupted cushy lives again. Nature, for all the poetry that abounds telling of its glory and motherly concern for us, is simply a mindless algorithm of the laws of physics. Plug fracking mistakes into the program and out comes disasters for us. And nature provides no “undo” button.

Wanna do something about Climate Change in Rochester, NY? (Hint: bike.)

 

If you care about increasing Active Transportation in the Rochester, NY region you can still make comment on this major road construction project by the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) until January 30^th, 2012. Check this out:

Access 390: Interchange 16 “This project will evaluate the current and future operational and safety needs of the I-390 Interchange 16 (Routes 15 and 15A). Potential design solutions will be developed to increase safety, reduced congestion and accommodate planned future growth and development. To submit comments, please go to the Contact Us page.” NYSDOT Home

Among all the engineering feats the DOT will accomplish, they will determine the social, economic, and environmental effects of this project. One of the environmental effects of this project, and any road project for that matter, will be increasing vehicular traffic that will emit more greenhouse gases (GHG). One of the ways to reduce the bad environmental effects of a great big road and bridge project is to implement active transportation. Active transportation is walking and wheel-chairing and bicycling and even skateboarding (if that’s your thing) to get to those short distances—which are the trips most folks take with their cars. But active transportation doesn’t put greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, so when you walk or bike instead of driving your car, you aren’t contributing to Climate Change.

The other evening I attended the New York State Department of Transportation’s public meeting in Rochester to find out about the complicated Access 390: Interchange 16 project—as it includes a lot of those engineering details that thrill the experts and leaves us common folks bewildered. In short, along the route, parallel to this Byzantine project on 390 are arterials, highways, where the DOT could use some of its left-over asphalt and put in bike lanes—like say on a stretch of East River Road. (I’m told, there is always asphalt left over from a big road job.)

This idea is that instead of getting in your car to get to those destinations that serve vehicles all too well, you could also do that route on bicycle. Clean air, a healthier lifestyle, less Climate Change, what’s not to like? Including routes for bicycles and other active transportation when big construction projects go on is the idea behind Complete Streets:

Complete Streets “Instituting a complete streets policy ensures that transportation planners and engineers consistently design and operate the entire roadway with all users in mind - including bicyclists, public transportation vehicles and riders, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”

I talked with a DOT representative (don’t ask me names, I’m so bad at that) and he assured me that the DOT always considers and always has considered the concepts behind Complete Streets. Their position is that if they can do it they will help implement assess for Active Transportation. My argument is that with the Complete Streets, now the law in NYS, the DOT must listen and respond to requests to tailor our roads for walkers and bicyclist when constructing and re-constructing an existing road. The operative word here is ‘must’. We are sure those great folks over at the DOT want to help us move along without pollution and warming up the planet, but we want to trust and verify.

So, thinking about your planet and Climate Change and how incredibly energy intensive (transportation accounts for 27% of GHG) getting around can be, why not contact the DOT (go here to do that https://www.dot.ny.gov/access390/contact) by January 30^th and let them know you care about Complete Streets—not just gas-guzzlers.

Trying to communicate Climate Change over the din of Super denials

 
The collective human reaction to Climate Change in the US can be characterized as dysfunctional. I use ‘dysfunctional’ in the sense that our collective reaction to the Climate Change threat is not normal for a functional species—a species intent on survival. Whether most folks in the United States understand Climate Change, or ‘think’ they understand Climate Change, we aren’t really addressing it in any meaningful way.

To ‘get’ Climate Change in a meaningful way would be to see a massive turnaround in how our media, politics, and our culture itself reacts to the most troubling issue of this century. Only a top-down, that is, leadership from government s around the world will bring down our greenhouse gas concentrations in our atmosphere to a level that won’t threaten our ability to survive. That is not even close to happening. We need to find a way to communicate this issue that is like no other challenge the human species has ever faced. Never had we had to change human behavior instantly on a planetary scale to survive.

This conversation between Andrew C. Revkin, science communicator/reporter at Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com and Nobel Prize winning physics Murray Gell-Mann about the difficulties of communicating the science of Climate Change to the public highlights one of the problems. Does the US public understand the basic physics of Climate Change or not: Can Better Communication of Climate Science Cut Climate Risks? - NYTimes.com. You ought to read this piece and watch the films clips as the whole conversation is rather amusing, amusing in the way absurdity is used in Vonnegut’s Slaughter House Five is amusing. We can laugh at our propensity for self-destruction, but not in a happy, joyful way.

Another way in which the US public is reacting in a dysfunctional way to the Climate Change crisis is through our politics. The presidential elections should be a time when important matters are discussed so the public can decide which candidate will be the best choice to solve those matters. I know even this is a pie-in-the-sky interpretation of what actually goes on during a presidential election, but this election season will be multiples of factors worse than our usual state of political ineptitude.

The 2012 presidential election will be dominated by a sound and fury about a lot of things that don’t matter, a few things that do matter, and nothing about Climate Change which will signify our country’s total inability to do anything to address it. This time around the vicious cycle of absurdity that surrounds our politics will be the roar of idiocy from the political action committees or Super PAC s. That’s political action committees with the word ‘super’ in front, where limitless amounts of money can be spent on lying for a candidate as long as the candidate isn’t orchestrating that money, and no disclosure of who is providing that money for a long time after the ads.

Super PAC’s are the Supreme Court’s way of saying Big money is far more important than Little people in the US. And thank goodness somebody is taken on the Super PACs.

Stephen Colbert May Run for President, Talks to George Stephanopoulos Running for president is hard work. But for comedian Stephen Colbert, who announced his plans to "explore" a presidential bid in South Carolina earlier this week, it's not the long hours of campaigning or the intense public scrutiny that weighed against his decision to run, it was giving up control of his Super PAC. "To do this exploratory committee, I had to give away my Super PAC," Colbert told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview Sunday morning on "This Week." "That's my baby. Do you know how hard it is to give away a baby? Now imagine if that baby had a whole lot of money. Imagine how much harder that would be to give away." (January 15, 2012) ABCNews.com

Here’s why that is important: The din created by the ads created by Super PAC will overshadow any discussion on Climate Change, and likely any other issue not popular in the 1%’s self-serving attitude towards a systems of laissez faire Capitalism that got our economy and environment in the deplorable state it is presently in. Don’t think there is an effort to suppress the public’s understanding of the world-wide Climate Change crisis? Check out how our children’s classrooms will be the next stage for crippling our country’s effort to educate the public on Climate Change:

Climate change becomes a flash point in science education - latimes.com Some states have introduced education standards requiring teachers to defend the denial of man-made global warming. A national watchdog group says it will start monitoring classrooms. Reporting from Washington— A flash point has emerged in American science education that echoes the battle over evolution, as scientists and educators report mounting resistance to the study of man-made climate change in middle and high schools. Although scientific evidence increasingly shows that fossil fuel consumption has caused the climate to change rapidly, the issue has grown so politicized that skepticism of the broad scientific consensus has seeped into classrooms. (January 16, 2012) Los Angeles Times

We are so going to cook.

The EPA could have been a contender on Fracking

 

Here’s something interesting to think about as we read the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) response to the Revised Draft SGEIS on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program (September 2011) - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation. So, today’s news abounds with the EPA’s letter to the SGEIS report on the safety of Fracking in New York State. The EPA, which is usually responsible for enforcing measures to protect our fresh water for the entire country, had a lot to say:

EPA reaction mixed on DEC fracking review | Democrat and Chronicle | democratandchronicle.com ALBANY — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency urged New York regulators to take steps to bolster the state's proposed hydraulic fracturing rules, providing a meticulous, line-by-line critique of its 1,500-page report. Beating a midnight Wednesday deadline to submit comments by less than three hours, the federal agency recommended dozens of ways for the state Department of Environmental Conservation to strengthen its hydrofracking proposals. Those suggestions include beefing up a ban on the technique within two major water supplies and taking a closer look at naturally occurring radioactive material found in gas-drilling waste.  (January 13, 2012] Democrat and Chronicle | Rochester news, community, entertainment, yellow pages and classifieds. Serving Rochester, New York | democratandchronicle.com

Go straight to the horse’s mouth (as we New Yorker’s say) and read the EPA comments to the SGEIS:

Region 2 | US EPA On January 11, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency submitted its comments on New York State's revised draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dSGEIS) and the proposed state regulations and general permit for storm water discharges related to high volume hydraulic fracturing. US Environmental Protection Agency

I am sure that the EPA would have had a lot more to say if they had not be kicked out of the process of regulating the gas drilling operations in all states, including NYS, had it not been exempt from its Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) | Safe Drinking Water Act | US EPA regulatory position.

Those nice people over at Citizens Campaign for the Environment - New York and Connecticut Environmental Protection Preservation and Advocacy give us an encapsulation of happened:

“To recover natural gas deposits in deep shale formations the industry prefers to use hydro-fracking; a process that uses millions of gallons of water mixed with chemicals to fracture the shale and release natural gas. Volumes of toxic, caustic, and potentially radioactive liquid waste byproducts are created in the hydro-fracking process, with no real plan for safe treatment and disposal. Effective lobbying by the oil and gas industry has led to key exemptions from a laundry list of environmental safeguards, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, and Superfund. New York’s air, land, water and people are vulnerable to hydro-fracking pollution due to inadequate federal and state oversight.” NATURAL GAS HYDRO-FRACKING IN SHALE | Citizens Campaign for the Environment - New York and Connecticut Environmental Protection Preservation and Advocacy

“Effective lobbying” Good Grief!—as if the oil and gas companies should be proud of themselves. The question that should be answered to the public’s satisfaction is, “Why did Fracking get exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act? “ At long last, after all that has been reported about the well and drinking water issues associated with Fracking, what were our politicians thinking about by exempting Fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act? They certainly couldn’t have been thinking of you.

One good thing about the NYS DEC Fracking process

 

As we reach the last day for making public comment on whether to lift the moratorium on Fracking in New York State, something good has come out of the four-month comment period. That something good is that we New Yorkers have had a conversation about our environment. Albeit, limited but a conversation nonetheless. Usually, when environmental concerns come up, we only argue about them as NYMBY issues, as how the environmental effects of a project will affect those immediately surrounding that particular project. Or, an environmental disaster occurs and folks start pointing fingers and calling up lawyers. We are a long way from adequately addressing environmental concerns in the media. (Note the almost criminal denial of media attention on Climate Change in the US presidential campaigns this year.)

The Fracking issue, drilling down horizontally for natural gas under the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale beneath New York State, is a positive leap forward in communicating environmental concerns because the whole state has had time to engage in the issue. Even our local media has been stirred out of their slumber and focused on what others think about Fracking in our state, though they themselves have not independently investigated all the environmental ramifications of how Fracking will affect our state. To get an idea of how a responsible and competent media investigates an intricate issue like hydrofracking nearby go to ProPublica’s Fracking - ProPublica “Gas Drilling's Environmental Threat.”

Of course, the limited way in which pubic comment was accepted by the DEC did not make for a full discussion about Fracking. The Revised Draft SGEIS on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program (September 2011) - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation was not a public discussion about whether to drill or not; it was a discussion on how to make drilling safe. For example, little still will be known about the public health aspects of Fracking after all the thousands of comments come in. Another is that because the cost of natural gas will be cheaper because of the increase in quantity, renewable energy will not be so economically desirable.

NCPR News - Gas drilling could take air out of offshore wind Politics and price are pitting gas drilling against offshore wind on the Great lakes. Our Front and Center partnership with WBEZ in Chicago looks at hopes for economic revival in the nation's rustbelt. In the Cleveland area, politicians and businessmen have been pushing for years to build a wind farm in Lake Erie. But the project's financing is up in the air, and as WBEZ's Chip Mitchell reports, state politics is tipping the balance toward hydrofracking, and away from what could be the first major offshore wind development in the Great Lakes.  (January 11, 2012) NCPR: North Country Public Radio

Those who have heralded natural gas as a transitional fuel, as it doesn’t (allegedly, as the methane component is still being argued about) burn as dirty as other fossil fuels , forget that their argument doesn’t hold up if we are not actually transitioning, that is ramping up the use of renewable energy—wind and solar—as we burn natural gas.

The problem with getting complete coverage on something that will affect New York State’s environment as profoundly as Fracking might be may boil down to simply money. The Fracking issue in New York State, regardless of how popular it is in the press at the moment because the comment period is closing today, cannot compete with something as lucrative for the media as the presidential elections—even though little of much importance is being talked about. Our presidential elections are mostly a dysfunction spin on how to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. There’s even a suggestion that the drilling companies have bribed their way into our decider’s hearts:

Hydrofracking industry bigs gave state politicians thousands of dollars - NY Daily News ALBANY — In pushing for state approval of hydrofracking, the natural gas industry has pumped $1.34 million into the coffers of New York politicians and their parties, a new study revealed. The donations were sprinkled around over the last four years as lawmakers and state officials debated whether to allow the controversial drilling process, formally known as hydraulic fracturing, in the gas-rich Marcellus Shale formation upstate, Common Cause New York said in its report. (January 11, 2012) New York News, Traffic, Sports, Weather, Photos, Entertainment, and Gossip - Homepage - NY Daily News

The conversation about Fracking in NYS should have been whether or not to allow it all at, considering how much stress our state will be under with Climate Change. As our fresh drinking water becomes dearer in the late summers (as predicted by most Climate Change models in this region), farmers, communities, and drilling companies may be competing for those precious drops of fresh water. The discussion should have been how New York State will get its energy in the future as our state and the rest of the world warms up due to Climate Change. Those few of us who have brought out this critical aspect of Fracking in these times in this state have been largely ignored.

Having said all that, I cannot remember an environmental issue that has received so much attention by so many New Yorkers in a long time. That is good. But have we really learned anything that we didn’t know about this issue? Have we learned how to decide on environmental issues at all—devoid of their potential for making some people a lot of money? Has the Fracking issue in NYS made us better stewards of our state’s environment—or have most been shooting from the hip with talking points from their favorite political parties?

Intolerable acts of denial, the 2012 Presidential race and Climate Change

 

Doesn’t it seem odd to you that most of the scientists and most of the countries on this planet understand Climate Change, while the US media and the US presidential elections almost completely ignore it? In this country, the media makes billions of dollars detailing the horse race, how low the President is in the polls, how much money a candidate has in their coffers, and questioning candidates on the latest slap from their opponents, yet we hear nothing on the most important issue of this century. We seem hell-bent on electing a President of the United States without even discussing Climate Change at all. What’s the point of having an election if you can’t talk about important things?

That’s not only very odd, but tragic. A US president is going to have to address this issue because it involves every aspect of being a president: wars, infrastructure, regulations, public lending, public health, and you-name-it. And Climate Change isn’t going to go away because a candidate’s handlers are uncomfortable with the issue as it threatens funding from large corporations like the fossil fuel industry.

Somehow, we here in the US have got to get over Climate Change denial and get going on grappling with it. Climate Change isn’t just an ordinary issue that you tack on to a laundry list of endless worries that end up paralyzing you into inaction. It has to be adapted to and reversed—or we cook. It is the one issue upon which all other issues in our future will revolve. It is caused by humans putting more greenhouse gases (GHG) into our atmosphere and it is steadily increasing:

2010 Carbon Dioxide Output Shows Biggest Jump Ever - NYTimes.com “Global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning jumped by the largest amount on record last year, upending the notion that the brief decline during the recession might persist through the recovery. Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to an analysis released Sunday by the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of scientists tracking the numbers. Scientists with the group said the increase, a half-billion extra tons of carbon pumped into the air, was almost certainly the largest absolute jump in any year since the Industrial Revolution, and the largest percentage increase since 2003.”

The Republican race for president is winding up, and the US public still doesn’t have a clue as to what the candidates will do about the next UN Climate Change talks, or how much public funds will be allocated to buttress our water, wastewater, transportation, and telecommunications infrastructures as extreme weather threatens them. There’s no plan among the candidates to deal with Climate Change. In fact, the Republican candidates are falling all over themselves to appease their base and ignore the elephant in the room.

Still Searching for Republicans With Climate Concerns - NYTimes.com The Climate Desk, a collaborative journalism project of Mother Jones and several other publications, has produced a video searching in vain for a Republican presidential candidate willing to make any science-based statements on climate. (January 5, 2010)

So, how does that work? Though denial plays well in the bizarre world of US politics, how does dismissing Climate Change work with the laws of physics and the growing concerns of the other nations around the world? (Australia just implemented a carbon tax.) At what point will the next president get tired of swatting every fly, that is, addressing every extreme weather event separately, until he or she finally connects the dots and calls for a comprehensive Climate Change action plan and summons up the courage to speak about it to the public? What will the mood of the American people be when they awaken from their slumber on Climate Change and start looking for those who have been lying about what most scientists and other countries have known for quite awhile now. Will there be accountability?

If we cannot talk about Climate Change in our politics, how can we choose a candidate who will address it? How do you have a conversation when one side won’t talk? How do we measure our chances of survival if a president won’t even mention it in his State of the Union address—as President Obama failed to do last year? How do we talk about economics and trade with other nations who are trying to reduce their GHG? Are we just going to get angry when other nations implement changes and these measures start to tread on our inalienable rights to warm the planet?

Carbon Emission Fees for Flights Upheld “PARIS — The European Union’s highest court on Wednesday endorsed the bloc’s plan to begin charging the world’s biggest airlines for their greenhouse gas emissions starting Jan. 1. The move sets the stage for a potentially costly trade war with the United States, China and other countries. A group of United States airlines had argued that forcing them to participate in the potentially costly emissions-trading system infringed on national sovereignty and conflicted with existing international aviation treaties.” (December 21, 2011) The New York Times

Shouldn’t the American public demand that their next president define his or her position on how they will address Climate Change? Sure it’s uncomfortable. There is no denying that understanding Climate Change implies a lot of inconvenient actions our nation must take—like moving to a carbon-free economy instead of one that continues to prey on our future. Heads will roll; there will be winners and losers, and if we do nothing, we’ll cook.

Many folks just don’t understand Climate Change, or don’t want to hear about it, but that isn’t going to stop the planet warming up. There are things we the people can do to start a national conversation and at least put this issue on the one platform where Americans speak about crucial matters–our presidential elections:

• We could use our social media programs to encourage that media outlets address all our concerns about Climate Change in our region.
• We could respond to the constant horserace by pivoting and challenging our local media to question our politicians on Climate Change.
• We could write letters to the editors of our local media and ask why they are not questioning our presidential candidates on what they would do to help us adapt and reverse Climate Change.
• When political candidates come for a visit, we can stand up and speak out for the US to take responsibility on Climate Change as Durban Climate Hero Abigail Borah did: Durban Climate Hero Abigail Borah: 'I Am Speaking On Behalf Of The USA Because My Negotiators Cannot' | ThinkProgress
• We could let our friends and family know that we are concerned about how politics as usual will jeopardize our future.
• We can visit our community leaders and let them know that we understand Climate Change and that we want to know what measures are being taken in our area to address it.
• We should contact the environmental groups we belong to and demand that they pressure the media to challenge the candidates on Climate Change. Some already do, like the League of Conservation Voters.

US mainstream media, backed by corporations who are not particularly fond of their puppets challenging the presidential candidates on Climate Change, must be replaced by a media that acts on our behalf, not the corporations. The present state of affairs, where the most powerful country in the world refuses to acknowledge the most important issue in the world, is intolerable. This craven idiocy cannot go on:

Climate coverage down again in 2011 — The Daily Climate Climate change dropped even further from the world's headlines and newscasts last year. Weird weather, Australia's carbon tax and Solyndra fracas weren't enough to stem a decline that started in 2009. Media coverage of climate change continued to tumble in 2011, declining roughly 20 percent from 2010's levels and nearly 42 percent from 2009's peak, according to analysis of DailyClimate.org's archive of global media. (January 3, 2011)

NYS Fracking decision looms; it’s getting intense

 

Three years ago I had never heard of Hydraulic fracturing (Fracking), until it was brought up at a Sierra Club conference I attended. Someone at the meeting said then that this issue will be big in New York State. Still, even a year ago it was barely mentioned in the Rochester, NY region—as the local media failed to mention for a long time that Fracking regulations are being shaped for both the Marcellus Shale and the Utica Shale, which includes Rochester, NY. . Now, things are getting intense. Even the governor is going to feel the heat:

“Superhero” Ads, Protesters Pressure Cuomo on Fracking ALBANY, N.Y. - Critics of fracking are to protest today at Gov. Andrew Cuomo's "State of the State address, hoping to tell the governor that he should slow the rush toward horizontal drilling for natural gas in New York's Marcellus Shale. Meanwhile, those worried about fracking's impact on New York's water have a new superhero, in a television ad produced by the Water Rangers Coalition. Wearing tights and a cape, he's played by a familiar character actor, Albany-born Adam Lefevre.  (January 4, 2012) Public News Service

Though, it is still hard to believe that New York State is still considering to Frack for natural gas. There are so many bad reasons why our state should not even consider this energy option, when we could have gone to renewable energy with the GLOW program (see NYPA: Great Lakes offshore wind is dead | Innovation Trail) that it leaves one stunned with incredulity.

The end is near: January 11^th ends the public comment period on the:” Hydraulic Fracturing SGEIS - Comment period extended to January 11, 2012. Information available for hydraulic fracturing in Marcellus Shale area:” New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)

First off, this statement by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is misleading because this SGEIS isn’t just about the Marcellus Share area, which run well below Rochester, NY. It includes the Utica Shale, which is where we live. So, and I don’t know why this talk about drilling in NYS continues to do it, we are hiding the fact that the Utica Shale is part of the SGEIS. Check page 2 of the Executive Summary (PDF) (805 kb).

In New York, the primary target for shale-gas development is currently the Marcellus Shale, with the deeper Utica Shale also identified as a potential resource. Additional low-permeability reservoirs may be considered by project sponsors for development by high-volume hydraulic fracturing. The Department has received applications for permits to drill horizontal wells to evaluate and develop the Marcellus Shale for natural gas production by high-volume hydraulic fracturing.

Then, there are questions as to why a drilling practice so threatening to our fresh water (see EPA Finds Compound Used in Fracking in Wyoming Aquifer - ProPublica) has been exempted from the Fresh Water Safe Drinking Act:

Former Bush EPA Official Says Fracking Exemption Went Too Far; Congress Should Revisit - ProPublica When Benjamin Grumbles was assistant administrator for water at the Environmental Protection Agency in the George W. Bush administration, he oversaw the release of a 2004 EPA report that determined that hydraulic fracturing was safe for drinking water. Then he watched as Congress used those findings to bolster the case for passing a law that prohibited the EPA from regulating fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act. (March 9, 2011) ProPublica

I mean it’s not like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is blind to the risk that Fracking brings to our drinking water:

Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act | Hydraulic Fracturing | US EPA Water is an integral component of the hydraulic fracturing process. EPA Office of Water regulates waste disposal of flowback and sometimes the injection of fracturing fluids as authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act. Safe Drinking Water Act| Several statutes may be leveraged to protect water quality, but EPA’s central authority to protect drinking water is drawn from the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The protection of USDWs is focused in the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program, which regulates the subsurface emplacement of fluid. Congress provided for exclusions to UIC authority (SDWA § 1421(d)), however, with the most recent language added via the Energy Policy Act of 2005: US Environmental Protection Agency

Anyway, before for this essay gets too long (as information about Fracking is growing in leaps and bounds in the media and all over the Internet) let me just encapsulate a few of the concern about Fracking--concerns about drilling leases, about drilling accidents, about earth quakes, and about Climate Change--just published by local media:

• NCPR News - Landowners may get less in shale lease deals Experts say exploration of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale is expected to keep rising in 2012. But they say landowners may find that signing lease deals isn't as easy as in years past. Drillers have swarmed in recent years to the Shale that lies beneath Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio. Pennsylvania is the center of activity, with more than 3,000 wells drilled in the past three years and thousands more planned. (January 3, 2012)NCPR: North Country Public Radio
• NCPR News - Comptroller wants fee to build drilling accident fund New York Comptroller Tom DiNapoli is thinking ahead to the possibility of new hydrofracking operations in the state this year. In a letter to the Department of Environmental Conservation, DiNapoli renewed his call for a drilling fee to pay for any accidents caused by natural gas drilling. The Innovation Trail's Matt Richmond reports. (January 3, 2012)
• NCPR News - Ohio delays four fracking wastewater wells in wake of quake Ohio leaders are prohibiting the use of four hydro-fracking waste-water wells from opening, after a series of earthquakes. Julie Grant reports that the state is concerned there's a link between the two. The wells are for disposal of waste fluid left over from hydraulic fracturing. Also known as fracking, it involves injecting water, sand, and chemicals deep into the ground at high pressure. That cracks the underground bedrock and allows oil or gas to flow. At the end of the process, there can be millions of gallons of waste-water. NCPR: North Country Public Radio (January 3, 2012)
• NCPR News - Fracking emissions raise questions about "green" gas The gas drilling technique known as hydro-fracking has raised fears about water supplies and environmental damage. But as the Innovation Trail's Matt Richmond reports, there's a new conflict about fracking brewing: what effect will emissions from the production process have on global climate change?  (January 3, 2011) NCPR: North Country Public Radio 
• N.Y. gas drilling opponents aim for local bans | Democrat and Chronicle | democratandchronicle.com ALBANY — As state environmental regulators wrap up their review of shale gas drilling in New York, opponents of a drilling method called hydraulic fracturing are taking a local approach, enacting zoning and planning laws that ban the practice. This home rule tactic will be a key focus of environmental groups in the new legislative session that begins Wednesday with Gov. Andrew Cuomo's state-of-the-state address in Albany. (January 3, 2012) Democrat and Chronicle | Rochester news, community, entertainment, yellow pages and classifieds. Serving Rochester, New York | democratandchronicle.com

The deadline for responding to the DEC's revised draft SGEIS is fast upon us: January 11! If you're sending your letter through USPS, it must be stamped no later than 1/11. Here is a very comprehensive guide on how to do all that: DSGEIS Responses - SourceWatch

New Year’s resolution to pay attention to the Climate Change Crisis

 

As times goes on it will get easier and easier to experience first-hand the consequences of Climate Change, it will also get harder and harder and to adapt and reverse those consequences. By the time Climate Change gets in our face with wildly extreme weather that breaks through the denial of the most ardent deniers, it will be far too late to actually turn Climate Change around. We already have 50 years of warming stored in our atmosphere and oceans to keep us busy even if we stopped one more molecule of carbon dioxide or any of the other greenhouse gases from entering our atmosphere.

All of us who are beginning to realize the magnitude of the Likely Changes in our regions coming with Climate Change have an obligation to communicate that understanding to everyone else. We cannot stop and reverse the changes—like extreme weather, changes in extreme precipitation events (rain and snow), rises in sea level, increase in invasive species, and much more—that are happening now with only a few on board. We cannot just rely on scientists to communicate the Climate Change Crisis:

As Climate Change Worsens, Scientists Feel Increasing Pressure to Speak Out | InsideClimate News At a recent conference, scientists debate how far they should go in expressing their concerns about the world's response to global warming. Factors contributing to climate change are moving faster than predicted and pushing us toward planetary conditions unlike any humans have ever known—this was one of the salient themes to emerge from this month's meeting of the American Geophysical Union, the world's largest gathering of earth and space scientists. Some scientists think we've already crossed that boundary and are, as Jonathan Foley, director of the University of Minnesota Institute on the Environment, said, "in a very different world than we have ever seen before."  (December 29, 2011) | InsideClimate News

In the United, as opposed to most of the world, we still have to combat Climate Change denial—especially as this most virulent form of anti-science has infested our government—but mostly Climate Change communicators need to get involved locally to find out what changes are coming to their regions and what their local government is doing to prepare for that. Climate Change action plans are critical and they must be coordinated with other counties, states, and nations.

We must all be Climate Change communicators. What specifically can Climate Change Communicators do? Here are some ideas:

• Start a web site, blog, or online group in your community to monitor local news as your media mentions extreme weather events and other predictions of Climate Change. Use Rochester Environment.com as a model.
• Write to you local media editors and ask them to pay attention to Climate Change as it may influence your community.
• Join organizations like 350.org that encourage local gatherings and actions on Climate Change.
• Comment online using your social networking like Facebook and Twitter to counteract wrong information about Climate Change and encouraging more folks to understand this issue.
• Join your local environmental and social groups and help them see the peril of Climate Change in your region.

Like an addict on illegal drugs crippled with insurmountable problems, our environmental and social problems as the Climate Change Crisis deepens will find ourselves with only one problem: surviving Climate Change. Every aspect of our lives sooner than later will have to be viewed through the lens of Climate Change: what be buy, where we work, where we live, our public health, how we get around, and even how we communicate—as extreme events (like flooding) will put many of our infrastructures in peril.

One of the most hopeful solutions to combating Climate Change that I have come across is the concept of the Citizen Science Programs as suggested by last month’s Report 11-18 Response to Climate Change in New York State (ClimAID) funded and published by New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) .

“Expand Educational Outreach and Citizen Science Programs | Educational outreach to private landowners should be a high priority to raise their awareness of the issues and their critical role in minimizing negative impacts of climate change on New York biodiversity, habitat integrity, and maintenance of important ecosystem services. All sectors of society will benefit from sound information on climate change, its potential impacts on natural areas, its implications for ecosystem services affecting human communities, and what they can do to participate in adaptation and mitigation.” (ClimAID page 194)

A world-wide Citizen Science Program could be just the kind of education and training programs that would occur on a large enough scale to make the kind of changes that would affect our Climate. With citizens (volunteers or paid) continually monitoring possible Climate Change effects in their regions, educating others, and helping to communicate that information to a world-wide network might just bring our planet’s awareness and ability to act on a scale that would make the difference between a sustainable existence and one doomed to run away warming.

Making a resolution to focus on the most important issue of our times will help turn the tide denial into one of hope and action. And, anything you can do to communicate the importance of a Citizen Science Program in your community will go far this New Year.

By watching Germany can we find out if renewable energy works for US?

 

Whether or not Germany can power its future entirely on renewable energy is an interesting observation not because what it says about Germany, but about the rest of us. As I see it, we are asking whether a country who is going full-out on renewable energy, energy sources that don’t pollute, warm-up, or jeopardize the planet, can do it—or will they fall back on the same old fossil fuels and nuclear energy? What we are really saying that Germany’s experiment with renewable energy is a test as to whether a country can free itself from the traditional energy sources that have a stranglehold on our economies?

The answer to the question that other countries are waiting for is simple: Yes, Germany, or any other country, can certainly provide its people and businesses with solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources—and they must. All eyes should be on ourselves, not Germany.

All Eyes On German Renewable Energy Efforts : NPR “FELDHEIM, Germany (AP) — This tiny village of 37 gray homes and farm buildings clustered along the main road in a wind-swept corner of rural eastern Germany seems an unlikely place for a revolution. Yet environmentalists, experts and politicians from El Salvador to Japan to South Africa have flocked here in the past year to learn how Feldheim, a village of just 145 people, is already putting into practice Germany's vision of a future powered entirely by renewable energy.” (December 29, 2011) NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR

It is not a technical question as to whether Germany can power itself with renewable energy. It can be done with a change in the way we use energy. We can change our energy use and conserve energy, and make our appliances and buildings energy efficient. We can use less; we can use battery storage, smart grids, and we can tolerate to see our land and waterscapes dotted with wind turbines. We can change the relatively inexpensive way we are powering our existence that has not equated the price of environmental degradation into that mix. We can stop massively subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and prevent how much money they give to our Congress and stop the ability of lobbyist to have an unfair advantage in our political system for their industry.

But we won’t. We want to wait to see if Germany can make renewable energy work while not upsetting the world-marketplace so we don’t have to act. It’s a silly and dangerous game we are playing: we want our cake and eat it too. We want to have a sustainable planet and continue to pollute and warm the planet at the same time. But doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity defined.

What we are really asking is whether or not we want to be bothered, if we want to be inconvenienced, if we want to upset and move to a sustainable energy system rather than the systems now in place. We are asking that Climate Change not be true and even if it is do we have a long enough time to continue on as we are without really doing anything major on how we get energy? We are asking whether Germany can change to a renewable energy future without upsetting the present order of world economics, where the fossil fuel industry and nuclear industry rule.

We are doing something in the US to encourage renewable energy, but not nearly enough:

EPA Finalizes 2012 Renewable Fuel Standards WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today finalized the 2012 percentage standards for four fuel categories that are part of the agency’s Renewable Fuel Standard program (RFS2). EPA continues to support greater use of renewable fuels within the transportation sector every year through the RFS2 program, which encourages innovation, strengthens American energy security, and decreases greenhouse gas pollution. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) established the RFS2 program and the annual renewable fuel volume targets, which steadily increase to an overall level of 36 billion gallons in 2022. To achieve these volumes, EPA calculates a percentage-based standard for the following year. Based on the standard, each refiner and importer determines the minimum volume of renewable fuel that it must ensure is used in its transportation fuel.  (December 29, 2011) U.S. EPA Newsroom - News Releases

Insurance may be key in getting the public and businesses to ‘get it’ on Climate Change.

 

Many, actually far too many, people dismiss the Climate Change Crisis for a variety of reasons—none of them having to do with science I suspect. That’s too bad because without public understanding of Climate Change there won’t be enough public support to adapt to the Likely Changes coming to our area, nor send the carbon dioxide count in our atmosphere back to the level we evolved.

You can read about what’s coming for New York State with Climate Change, as encapsulated in this report:

The Daily Mail > Archives > News > Report talks of climate change’s effects Columbia, CUNY and Cornell assess future for NYSERDA  | A 460-page, in-depth report developed by Columbia University, the City University of New York, and Cornell University for the NYS Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) says -- in no uncertain terms -- that New York State’s climate is changing, and cautions what its outcomes will be, and also offers recommendations for adapting to it. The report does not address mechanisms for stopping or preventing the warming trend, but only what its effects will be, and how possibly to adapt to them.  (December 27, 2011) The Daily Mail

However, despite the lack of in-your-face catastrophe that the American public seems to require (like the Japanese strike at Pearl Harbor in 1941) before they are inclined to react to danger, there is an aspect of Climate Change that will certainly grab the public’s attention: insurance rates.

Those who insure our way of life—our cars, our homes, our whatever—are not so complacent about our future as your usual Climate Change deniers. Insurance folks have to look ahead and determine risk factors so they can hedge against catastrophes. Too many disasters at once, like floods, and they cannot pay out. If an insurance company says it will no longer insure your house because the likelihood of flooding has increased in your area because of Climate Change that will get your attention.

Will 2012 top 2011 for record weather disasters? | Reuters From floods that crippled countries, to mega cyclones, huge blizzards, killer tornadoes to famine-inducing droughts, 2011 has been another record-breaker for bad weather. While it is too early to predict what 2012 will be like, insurers and weather prediction agencies point to a clear trend: the world's weather is becoming more extreme and more costly.  (December 28, 2011) Reuters.com

Getting some perspective on our planet’s extreme weather and natural disasters.

 

Not to push the morbid display of things that often go wrong with our planet’s machinations, some of which are a response to our treatment of Earth, here are some interesting photos of our Earth from satellites far above us. (See below.)

Maybe this lofty view high above the maddening crowds is the view we should be thinking of when we act locally and aggregate our effects of Nature. We might not allow legislation to go forth that spews million of more tons of fossil fuels into our atmosphere if we could visualize on a planetary scale the consequences of that.

Our consciousness will expand and we’ll finally, through our thoughts, acts, and deeds, speak for Planet Earth.

NASA Images of 2011: e360 Gallery The past year will go down as one in which extreme weather, and major natural disasters, took a heavy toll across the globe. Some of the most unforgettable images of these events — and of the planet’s natural cycles — were taken high above Earth by NASA satellites.  (December 27, 2011) Yale Environment 360: Opinion, Analysis, Reporting & Debate

An unavoidable Climate Change issue that must be addressed soon

 

As Climate Change takes hold there will be more flooding in the Northeast of the US so there will be more incidents of overflows from sewage systems. This is one of those issues related to Climate Change that even a Climate Change denier public official is going to have to face no matter how entrenched he or she is in their denial. Besides out-dated sewer systems that allow raw sewage to flow into our lakes and streams during frequent and heavy rainfall, our sewer system infrastructures are getting old.

Our sewer systems are going to have to be repaired, replaced, and altered to deal with the predicted increase in extreme weather. We can do things like preserve and even create more wetlands that are able to absorb some of the increases in precipitation, but we are going to have to act quickly.

Under our present attitudes towards government in these lean financial times, where government has little money and little political will to put more money into protecting and preserving our environment, things are going to get tough. The public is going to have to learn about this aspect of Climate Change in our Northeast region in order to back the kind of financial burden making these very expensive changes will require. Good luck with that. Who will put the Climate Change bell on the cat of Climate Change expenses?

Already, sewer system overflows are a major problem, contaminating our waters, but it will get much worse the longer we don’t face it now.

US cities struggle to control sewer overflows  | ajc.com TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. — Twice in recent summers, visitors to parts of Michigan's western coast were greeted by mounds of garbage strewn along miles of sandy beach: plastic bottles, eating utensils, food wrappers, even hypodermic syringes. At least some of the rubbish had drifted across Lake Michigan from Milwaukee, a vivid reminder that many cities still flush nasty stuff into streams and lakes during heavy storms, fouling the waters with bacteria and viruses that can make people seriously ill. Thousands of overflows from sewage systems that collect storm water and wastewater are believed to occur each year. Regulators and environmentalists want them stopped, and since the late 1990s the Environmental Protection Agency or state officials have reached legal agreements with more than 40 cities or counties — Atlanta, Los Angeles, Baltimore, St. Louis and Indianapolis among them — to improve wastewater systems that in some cases are a century old. Costs are reaching hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. (December 26, 2011) Atlanta News

Brown Christmas in Rochester, NY 2011 - a harbinger of Climate Change?

 

These unusually warm days before Christmas 2011 are but few of a thousand predictions of extreme weather that will come with Climate Change. Though, it is incorrect and very unfashionable to say that these particular rainy and warm days during this December 2011 are a direct result of Climate Change. It’s just as incorrect to say that the February 5–6, 2010 North American blizzard also known as "Snowmaggedon" that put hope in the souls of a dying breed of Climate Change deniers proved that climate warming wasn’t true. Actually, Climate Change predictions predict periodic big snow fall events because our warmer air holds more water (about 4% more) and when that warm moisture hits cold air you get snow—sometimes lots of it.

Back and forth those trying to engage the public on Climate Change, some who know what they are talking about and some who don’t, are trying to convey to an reluctant public their views on the greatest calamity humanity has ever faced . But it isn’t easy. In today’s political climate, where the old order of world views and economics, where many are trying to hold on to their incorrect modeling about the way the world actually works, is fighting tooth and nail against the looming reality. This is the looming reality:

• The Year in Weather: It Was a Disaster Some areas experienced historic floods, others saw historic droughts. Is climate change to blame? A once-in-five-hundred-year flood inundated the Mississippi River valley. A once-in-a-century drought in Texas shriveled the summer's crops and sparked sweeping forest fires. The deadliest tornado season on record tore communities to splinters. 2011 was clearly a year of extreme weather. Perhaps it is a sign of the pending 2012 apocalypse, but more likely, it is the result of a changing climate that is amplifying extremes. The chart above marks more than 2,900 separate weather records broken this year, and these records were costly. In all, Mother Nature inflicted $52 billion dollars in damage on the United States.  (December 22, 2011) The Atlantic
• Environment world review of the year: '2011 rewrote the record books' The ecologically tumultuous year saw record greenhouse gas emissions, melting Arctic sea ice, natural disasters and extreme weather – and the world's second worst nuclear disaster The year 2011 was another ecologically tumultuous year with greenhouse gases rise to record levels, Arctic sea ice nearly equalling 2007's record melt, and temperatures the 11th highest ever recorded. It was marked on the ground by unparalleled extremes of heat and cold in the US, droughts and heatwaves in Europe and Africa and record numbers of weather-related natural disasters.  (December 22, 2011) The Guardian

Dismissing, ignoring, and putting off reality for a future time just won’t do. Things are getting hot. But how do Climate Change communicators talk to the public about this unsavory topic? Right now in order to be a Climate Change communicator one has to bend over backwards not to say things like ‘Climate Change Crisis,’ or ‘Global Warming, and ‘Methane Bomb’ (that describes the potential massive release of stored up methane gas in permafrost regions) or anything else that seems offensive to the social standards of good taste. Even religion is having a tough go of it:

From the pews: Facing the reality of climate change Katharine Hayhoe is an evangelical Christian climate scientist who, when asked whether she “believes” in climate change, answers “no.” Don’t get Hayhoe wrong: She’s convinced that climate change is happening and that humans are causing it, like the vast majority of other climate scientists. She just doesn’t like talking about something like climate science in terms of “belief.” (December 16, 2011) Climate Reality

Here’s the thing: Should Climate Change communicators use fear, hope, or military thinking that says Climate Change will put more stress into all world conflicts that arise over potential wars over water shortages? Should they present the possible green energy paradigm where we can use all our gadgets without global guild, or really push the stop buying anything that isn’t energy efficient strategy? Or, should they cling on to sports events, movies, and vacations trips thus pandering to the public’s tendency towards escapism?

Should they link every extreme weather event to Climate Change or never do it and let the message seep in through a kind of oblivious osmosis? Should they connect the dots in local areas (like Rochesterenvironment.com does) between expert studies on Climate and local news stories? Should they use psychology and sociology or just the power of the market? Should they use the insurance argument that it’s going to get very expensive to live next to coastal areas because of sea rise due to glacier calving? Maybe we should use the World War II analogy where we all got together and faced the common enemy when the time was ripe—though with something so all-over-the-board as Climate Change it’s hard to tell when the time is ripe so people can get going.

Or, should we just lay out the facts and say things like the last time our planet’s atmosphere was at our present 390ppm of Carbon Dioxide sea level rose to seventy-five feet above what they are now-- which, if enough time were to pass and the concentration was held at 390ppm, the glacial melts and other associated causes (like warm water expansion and the oceans being less capable of sequestrating carbon dioxide) would put us at that mark. Florida by the way, which is only a few feet above sea level, would be long gone.

The truth is that our environment has changed. However Climate Change communicators spin the message, our planet’s atmosphere is warming up. As Bill McKibben states in Eaarth, our atmosphere holds 4% more water vapor since the centuries that we evolved. Everything now and in the future on this planet must be viewed through the lens of Climate Change. Even environmental groups, who view themselves as preservationists, will have to change how they act as environmentalists because their targets will be forever moving in a changing climate.

This brown Christmas might be a moment to reflect that this might be the new normal for Rochester, NY.

Climate Change is not a political issue, but in the US it is

 

There’s no way Climate Change is not political in the US. Not only have the extreme wing of the Republican party robbed the party of a coherent position on the science of Climate Change, the present GOP Presidential candidates haven’t a clue as to how to please their money-backers and talk to the media about Climate Change at all.

Word is that the GOP has been told not to talk to the press about Climate Change, except to say the regulators (like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) are a job-killer. Ouch! Those Republicans can really sling a slur against sanity. Dutifully, we who understand Climate Change and science have to say that the Republic Party produced Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon who did much to preserve and protect our environment. (OK, I just did that.)

But now things are getting dire. We just had a string of loony presidential candidate debates where the mainstream media barely mentioned Climate Change. And what was said was, well…. Loony:

Top 5 Craziest Things GOP Contenders Said on Climate in 2011 | ThinkProgress Sure, the extremist wing of the GOP has been saying crazy things about climate for a while (see Rep. Shimkus: “Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood”). But the anti-science wing is now in charge (see John Boehner says on ABC: “The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical”). And it has been able to make climate craziness a litmus test for the Presidency. (December 20, 2011)  Top 5 Craziest Things GOP Contenders Said on Climate in 2011 | ThinkProgress

The public should not be sitting back and letting this circus on denial on the most important issue of our century play on. The public, the public who reads the news, buys subscriptions, add comments to newspapers, and turns on the boob tube (as we children of the sixties used to call TV) should demand that the news agencies grill all presidential candidates on Climate Change. Either that or we should turn our attention to media who is able to focus on the fact that the US might elect a President who doesn’t understand Climate Change.

Here’s what the media should be asking:

• What is the next president going to do about the new agreements in the next Climate Change talks?
• What is the next president going to do with all their authorities’ reports on addressing Climate Change in our country? Are they going to ignore, for example, what the Fish and Wildlife Service says that has to be done to save our wildlife? Check out: Rising to the Urgent Challenge Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change | US Fish and Wildlife service http://www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/pdf/CCStrategicPlan.pdf
• What is the next president going to do to educate the public on the enormous amount of money is it is going to take to adapt our transportation, telecommunications, and wastewater infrastructures so they aren’t flooded by the increase in extreme weather coming down the tubes?

The absurd position that we cannot talk about Climate Change and politics in the same sentences and paragraphs is a crazy social quirk in the US. This is exactly how we should be talking about Climate Change. We need to move away from this:

“In the United States an individual’s partisan affiliation is the most important determinant of their views on the existence of global warming, with Democrats significantly more likely than Republicans to believe that the Earth is warming” Climate Compared: Public Opinion on Climate Change in the United States & Canada February 2011

This isn’t just sad; it has to change if we are to be a functional nation. The US exists on this planet with other nations and other nations are either addressing climate change without us or getting annoyed at us for doing little. Without getting political, the US must inject Climate Change into our national presidential debates or we the people are going to get robbed of a future.

Save the planet, surf the web

 

I know, it sounds just a little too convenient and ridiculously easy to think we can save the planet by surfing the web. But hear me out. Your great big brain added to all the other human brains pondering our collective fate and interconnecting with each other on Climate Change could be one of our most effective Climate Change strategies. For without a wholesale understanding of the Climate Change crisis by the public, all the other stuff—Climate Change talks, Climate Change actions plans, specific Climate Change Action (Tar Sands Action), and all those little things we do to limit our carbon footprints--are just are not going to happen at the speed and across-the board changes that will matter. Climate Change cannot be solved by doing little things here and there. (This is the bottom-up approach.)

Climate Change is a world-wide phenomenon that is happening right now and no matter how inglorious this issue many seem and how annoying the increasing natter about denial gets, we have to address it. For a zillion reasons, the public (especially the American public whose per capita greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) out produces all other nations in warming up the planet) doesn’t want to hear about Climate Change. They doubt it, or they believe it all too well and it makes them feel helpless, or they don’t understand how Climate Change is affecting them right now, or how it will increasingly do so. Or, they think the Climate Change folks want to take their gas-guzzling pick-up trucks away from them. Whatever. The Climate Change crisis, however slow some may think it is occurring, is a kind of disaster like nothing our species has experienced.

While there are a lot of Climate Change studies around, including one of the most comprehensive studies called Response to Climate Change in New York State (ClimAID) that was funded by New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), there is little possibility of accomplishing what needs to be done in the study’s recommendations without the public onboard. The study suggests actions like moving our transportation and telecommunications modes away from low-lying coastal areas, and moving waste water treatment plants away from flood plains. Also, we need to change most of our waste water treatment plants so they aren’t overwhelmed by frequent and heavy rain falls that will create combined sewer overflows and despoil our Great Lakes, Finger Lakes, and rivers. Just these actions alone (there are a lot more) will cost billions. They are expensive, inconvenient, and might possibly help us survive the future. (You really ought to challenge your Climate Change denier friends to read ClimAID, which was funded by your government, not rich, whacky political pundits who make zillions lying to the public.)

Climate Change denial is stupid. And sure, crying in your beer about how the previous generations screwed up your generation is morbid fun, but think for a moment about the Giant Killer Pigs From Hell. They were 600 pound pig-like predators who ruled prehistoric American for 10 million years. They were crazy mad, ferocious, and had only a teeny weenie brain. But they didn’t destroy their environment and every living being in it. Though ugly, their way of life worked for a long, long time. They had their fun and we got a chance to take over. But our brainy species has only been around (in the form we are today) about 200,000 years. Yet we, allegedly the most incredibly smart creature who ever lived, are not only cooking ourselves because of the way we use energy (burning greenhouse gases) but all the other creatures who might want a chance to evolve and play computer games on this planet too.

Ok, back to the surfing the web idea. The Internet has and is increasingly making it possible to garner information about the state of our environment from all over the world. It allows us to turn our great big brains into one big world-wide brain for gathering useful information about Climate Change. It increases our vision to view the world from one place, noodling over it, and connecting those observations with others by multitude of factors never before imagined. And, this was true years ago. Now there are some more useful web features that environmentalists (that’s every human on the planet wishing to have a habitable planet) can use which will vastly increase our information gathering and connectivity.

Without promoting one particular product, I’d just like to use Google Currents as one of the best examples of an enhanced resource for finding out about your environment. I’m sure there are many more. With this web-based aggregator app you can read any news service or a web site with a feed as if it were a professional online magazine. Doesn’t sound like more than a slick piece of software until you think about these new apps on your Smartphone or tablet as a way of making every feed (web site, magazine, or news service) look and operate as smoothly and easily as the major online magazines. This democratization of information (which, I can assure you drives the major media moguls nuts, because they want the new media all to themselves) will make the public more inclined to look for more alternative news sources—instead of the usual mainstream stuff, much of which is corporate-based propaganda bent on keeping you addicted to fossil fuels.

That’s not all. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has tried to promote the use of the Internet as a way to engage the public on learning about and acting for our environment. Check out some of these environmental apps:

11/08/2011: EPA Announces Winners of Apps for the Environment Challenge WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced the winners of its Apps for the Environment challenge, which encouraged new and innovative uses of EPA’s data to create apps that address environmental and public health issues. Developers from across the country created apps with information about everything from energy efficient light bulbs to local air quality. A few even developed games to help people learn environmental facts. (November 8, 2011) U.S. EPA Newsroom - News Releases

This is all important because the biggest dilemma on Climate Change is how to get the majority of the public around the world to understand and act in concert on Climate Change. Governments don’t know how to do it; businesses don’t know, and politicians—forgetaboutit. Even environmental groups are spinning their wheels trying to get folks to take action on Climate Change without saying ‘Climate Change.’ Right now we think pandering to people’s self-interests, not the full implications of Climate Change, is the way to convince those you don’t want to hear about it to act. This keep-your-eye-off-the ball approach isn’t working and I don’t think it’s a good strategy. It infantilizes the public and ignores the top-down approach that needs to be done to adequately address this issue.

Ultimately, we need seven billion souls turning their attention to the most significant problem of our century in order to have even a remote chance of surviving it. Of course, buying products that are green from birth to grave, recycling, re-using, and donating stuff, using less energy, bicycling and walking for short distances, and turning down the thermostat (you really should use a programmable thermostat) are all critical. But too little is being done by too few to affect something as incredibly big as our climate.

You, with your Internet connection, can learn about the ramifications of Climate Change as the world gathers more and more evidence of what’s going on. You can find ways to convince others of the science and urgency behind Climate Change. Climate Change, a rapid rise in Earth’s atmosphere in a very short time due to our own machinations, is unlike anything our species has ever confronted before. And, when you think about it, the Internet is a tool unparalleled in human communications. We can connect the dots and act in our own collective self-interests.

Whether or not you think environmental issues are your thing—they are. I could go on but the great scientists and science communicator, Carl Sagan, summed it up best:

Anything else you're interested in is not going to happen if you can't breathe the air and drink the water. Don't sit this one out. Do something. You are by accident of fate alive at an absolutely critical moment in the history of our planet.

You see, the dirty little secret about addressing Climate Change is that in order to save yourself, your going to have to save everyone—even if they don’t have a lot of money.