Gore's Testimony a Success

The general consensus is that Al Gore's testimony was a success even if it lacked "fireworks."
Washington Post's Warren Brown said that Gore "actually made sense, especially on the matter of fuel economy and its relationship to global warming." He quoted Gore's chastising of Congress, saying it should "abandon its habitual blame-shifting, responsibility-dodging approach to energy conservation."
"It was part science class, part policy wonk paradise, part politics and all theater," according to the New York Times. NYT noted a subtle divide between global warming believers and the die-hard skeptics: "Beneath the carefully groomed surface of the House and Senate committees’ scripted production, a rift was evident. Republican committee leaders, including Mr. Barton in the House, and Mr. Inhofe in the Senate, seemed somewhat isolated from their rank-and-file colleagues, who appeared more receptive to Mr. Gore’s message and the scientific consensus on climate change."
The L.A. Times, land of Hollywood, placed more emphasis on the hoopla surrounding Gore's return to the halls of politics than on his actual testimony: "The doors swung open and he made his entrance with cameras clicking, the wooden politician denied the presidency and derided as "Ozone Man" was coming home to the Capitol. But this time they called him a movie star and likened him to a prophet." There's more (Gore "can share a stage with Leonardo DiCaprio and still manage to be the center of attention"), but you get the idea.
All and all a pretty good outing for the "Goracle."

That dirty word

Al Gore is on Capitol Hill today (3/21) testifying before the House and Senate on climate change. The panels he will be addressing will include climate change skeptics "of the sort Gore probably hasn't met on the red carpet," according to the Washington Post. Who are these scary skeptics?
First, that giant of climate science, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). The other climate skeptic is Bjorn Lomborg, currently adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School. Back in 1998, Lomborg wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist, in which he denounced many of the concerns of environmental science, especially climate change. This brought much condemnation from the scientific community and Lomborg was roundly denounced by the likes of Edmund O. Wilson, Lester Brown and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
I've seen some of the morning testimony, and Gore more than held his own.

Hansen Outspoken As Ever

Climate scientist James Hansen is in the news again. Testifying before Congress, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says the Bush administration used "Nazi tactics" in controlling and manipulating climate change information. Testifying before the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, Hansen acknowledged that Bush and his cohorts are not the first administration to practice information management, but they have been the most vigorous. In an LA Times article, Hansen complained about having his writings and speeches edited by non-scientists.
Philip Cooney, former chief of staff to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (2001-2005), said he reviewed Hansen's testimony for "consistency." Before taking his post at the White House, Cooney worked for the American Petroleum Institute. Hmmm . . .
Hansen was one of the very first scientists of stature to speak out on global warming many years ago. The Bush White House has tried to muzzle him, but he managed to keep his views in the public eye. He was one of the first to mention the idea of a tipping point. This means that if we don't do something to reverse CO2 emissions within ten years, it will be too late.

Fairfax going green

Also in today's Post, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerry Connolly announced an ambitious program to reduce his county's carbon footprint in his State of the County address (delivered Tuesday, but televised this evening). Partnering with the Sierra Club and King County, Washington, and Cook County in Illinois, the plan calls for hybrid county vehicles, establishing wind power for homes, green construction techniques for county buildings, tree planting, etc. It would establish incentives for businesses to conserve energy.
The plan will take millions of dollars and must be passed by the Board of Supervisors.
"There are over 3,000 counties and this could have an enormous impact across the nation," Connolly told Post reporter Amy Gardner. The plan would put Fairfax among the many jurisdictions taking action locally across the country. In this region, Arlington and Montgomery Counties, and Alexandria, Chevy Chase and the District, have local initiatives.

Terrorists MIGHT get us, but global warming WILL

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), newly appointed chairman of the newly formed Senate Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, says he will use the issue of national security as a focus for reducing US dependence on foreign oil. A Post article quotes Markey: "The more we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the more we reduce the money we send these countries, and the less they will have to fuel the terrorists." Can't we leave the terrorists out of it and simply work on correcting the problem because it's the right thing to do and, incidentally, will ensure our continued survival as a species. Apparently, he hasn't noticed the last two words in the title of his new committee.

Protecting the Ozone

We got rid of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) years ago because they were proven to be eating a hole in the ozone layer of the atmosphere. Now we have to get rid of HYDROchlorofluoro- carbons, or HCFC-22, which were never banned for use by developing countries. China, the largest manufacturer of air conditioning units in the world, still uses HCFC-22 as a refrigerant. Most air-conditioning systems in the United States also use HCFC-22. According to a New York Times article, the US has joined Argentina, Brazil, Iceland, Mauritania and Norway in saying that they want to speed up a phaseout of HCFCs at an international conference in Montreal scheduled for September.
The article mentions that a report last week by five US and European scientists found that sharp cutbacks in gases that reduce ozone since 1987 have been far more effective in fighting global warming than the Kyoto Protocol. Particle for particle, CFCs are far more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2, but there is vastly more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Currently, developing countries are allowed to continue to increase use of HCFCs until 2016, then continue that level until 2040, at which time all use of HCFCs will be banned. The EU discontinued use of HCFC in 2004 and the US will stop using it in 2010.

Carbon offsets

Back to feet of carbon for a moment. Last night I reread an article about Al Gore in Wired magazine (May '06) that mentioned his use of carbon offsets. He and Tipper regularly calculate their home and business energy use, including their frequent international travel, then they purchase offsets. Last year (2005), they redeemed their million miles of air travel by giving money to an Indian solar electric company and a Bulgarian hydroelectric project.

Criticism of "Balance" in Environmental Reporting

In January, Joseph Romm, scientist and former Department of Energy official, said that climate change skeptics are a dwindling lot. In fact, they are a small enough group to be stuffed in a shower stall, he said.
Romm appeared on Environment and Energy webcast OnPoint on January 16, interviewed by Monica Trauzzi.
When asked why conservative climate skeptics are so successful in getting their message out, Romm said that they are better at rhetoric. They are also very well funded. He mentioned a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists that found that “Exxon Mobil [is] pumping millions and millions of dollars into shadow groups and conservative think tanks.”
In addressing the media’s penchant for trotting out climate skeptics in the name of “balanced reporting,” Romm had the following to say:

“the media has this notion that you have to give both sides
equal time, even if, in this case, 99.9 percent of the scientists
believe one thing and a small number of scientists, usually
funded by the fossil fuel industry, state another thing. And
I just think the media coverage has been incomplete. There
have been a lot of stories about recent heat waves or the
record wildfire season that hasn't talked about the impact
that climate is having on that. This is a tricky subject, but
I think it's incumbent on the media to understand what's
going on and report what the growing, emerging consensus
is and not spend a lot of time with industry flaks who are
spreading disinformation.”

Here, here! There has been much criticism of the media for giving a platform to a tiny group of scientists who make a lot of noise on behalf of their corporate sponsors. Balanced reporting should mean exactly that—give a proportionate amount of space each side.