April 3, 2017 · OPINION
America should lead in the Paris Climate Agreement
By Donna Rose
In 2015, 190 countries came together and ultimately 175 signed the Paris Climate Agreement to reduce dangerous greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, in the U.S., 117 mayors signed the Compact of Mayors pledge; 154 businesses signed the American Businesses Act on Climate, and 311 colleges/universities signed the College Campuses Act on Climate.
Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists agree that human activity is driving rapid climate change, which threatens earths environment affecting all life. Therefore, all nations and peoples must work to halt this manmade problem.
Our earth is ill, with a poor prognosis unless we act decisively.
“If humanity hopes to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100, it must essentially stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by 2060, according to a study by Nature Climate Change,” Robinson Meyer wrote in the Dec. 15, 2015, edition of The Atlantic.
With storms becoming more powerful, deserts expanding, glaciers melting, oceans rising, island nations under threat of inundation and shorelines receding, why would anyone call climate change a hoax? Is it because they’d rather ignore bad news? Perhaps some choose to cash in on dirty industries.
President Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, plans to slash Environmental Protection Agency funding by 31 percent. He supports dirty industries and has vowed to end U.S participation in the Paris Climate Agreement. Yet several large energy companies — notably Exxon Mobile and Conoco Phillips — have expressed support of the PCA, as does the World Coal Association.
The U.S. is the second-worst carbon emitter in the world. We are the wealthiest nation and the most powerful. For us to step back from the PCA would make Russia and China, both of which signed the agreement, more advanced than the U.S. in their environmental leadership. Our current president lacks the initiative to save our planet, but we as a people can lead by pressing our representatives, senators and state delegates to support environmentally friendly policies to keep the U.S. in the PCA and to strengthen, not weaken, the EPA.
We need to push for wind, solar, geothermal and other clean energy sources. We must phase out harmful fossil fuels. Let your elected officials know that President Trumps backing of increasing carbon emissions by allowing auto industries to abandon environmentally-friendly technology is unacceptable. Call the car manufacturers, state your concerns and refuse to buy from them if they produce even one model that fails the highest standard.
Join in on the upcoming protest marches in D.C. (April 22 for science and April 29 for climate) or start one locally. We have a duty, as caretakers of Gods green earth, to ensure that it is healthy and sustainable when we pass it on to the future generations.
The Paris Climate Agreement is a major achievement. Our government is of the people, for the people, by the people. And now We the People must lead.
Observer · April 12, 2017 at 6:48 am
The March for Science is even more idiotic event than I could imagine, have fun.
"This March for Science does not appear to be largely about science, or about people who know a great deal about science, or even about people who want to know a great deal about science. (It would be kind of fun, in fact, to quiz earnest potential attendees about the details of the scientific method, or whether Johannes Kepler should finally win that well-deserved Oscar.) Keeping up with today’s hottest trends, the March for Science has wrapped itself in identity politics, cranked up the oven to “scorch,” and potentially set things on track to unceremoniously collapse into one giant intersectional soufflé."
Traverse · April 11, 2017 at 3:16 pm
I strongly support liberals and anyone else who wants to develop renewable energy. Just not at the expense of our beautiful vistas, or forced on an unwilling public to purposely raise the price of energy trying to remedy an unproven theory (AGW).
If we can put wind farms out in the ocean where people can't see the ugly towers, and make the power they generate affordable, I’m in. Tide generators, same conditions, bring them on. Affordable electric cars with the same range and power as a piston engine… very cool. Affordable geothermal and solar would be awesome. Cold fusion… we can only hope. After Fukushima I’m not a big fan of nuclear power.
In the meantime we need cheap gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and coal, to fuel our cars, homes, and economy, and a reasonable effort to make them all burn cleaner, without purposely making them expensive to punish those who use them.
As far as the “conservative-led” Climate Leadership Council is concerned, I think I made it clear in my previous comments what I think about the AGW alarmists. Raising taxes to try and change the weather... that’s just nuts in my opinion. The sun controls our climate. That fact will never change, as hard as some may try.
Demosthenes · April 10, 2017 at 4:04 pm
Alright Traverse, we know where you stand when it comes to liberals pushing for renewable energy.
But I still want to know where you stand when it comes to the conservative plan for clean energy. I refer, once again, to the conservative-led Climate Leadership Council and their plans to tax "unclean" energy and then offer payouts to the American people.
Traverse · April 9, 2017 at 11:06 am
The Anthropogenic Global Warming theory... is just that… a theory. Nothing has been proven, and there is no scientific consensus. Anyone who wishes to do so can easily find a great deal of information from thousands well informed and highly educated sources, who have presented convincing scientific evidence to refute, or at least call into serious question the AGW hypothesis.
People who believe in this theory have gone so far as to ruin hundreds of square miles of what use to beautiful vistas across the America heartland to try and push their agenda. My wife and I drove out to Colorado last summer, and diving through Kansas and eastern Co. was heartbreaking. As far as the eye could see were these ugly monstrosities, with giant arms slowly turning, killing birds and marring the once beautiful prairie. All of them could be easily be replaced by one small power plant fired by natural gas. And the AGW crowd wants more of them! They want to us hand of our sovereignty to the Untied Nations, and raise the price of gas and electricity to force all to use their unreliable and expensive green power. Shameful.
America needs cheap abundant power for her factories, businesses, transportation, economy, and military. Fossil fuels are the backbone of our nation. They keep us mobile, warm, safe, and free. Let’s make them cleaner, safer, and more efficient.
Enough of the AGW hysteria!
Demosthenes · April 8, 2017 at 4:05 pm
"America first" doesn't work when we are talking about a global environmental issue. This isn't an "us vs them" sort of thing...just all of humanity together and the one planet that we have to sustain ourselves. Global warming or not, whether all developing nations are doing their part or not, the United States should lead when it comes to protecting this planet.
Rover 530 · April 8, 2017 at 12:39 am
We all need to be careful about how we affect our local environment. However, it becomes difficult when you address regional and statewide issues. The USA needs to deal with this issue as it relates to our country not how other countries work it within their borders. America first.
Observer · April 7, 2017 at 12:04 pm
Well, all I want is to contain EPA within the law and constitution - something that hussein's administration ignored.
Kay G. · April 7, 2017 at 11:09 am
I'm not an extremist in my views on anything, really. I try to be balanced, be fair, step into other peoples' shoes (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). I don't see "progressive" government as the controlling demon you appear to, but rather that it looks at "the whole" and what is better for the majority. Being in step and a leader with other nations on the issue of our clean air, clean water, healthy soils, sustainability for generations to come... Nothing is crazy or controlling about that. As I said, I'm not extreme. Signing off from this conversation.
Observer · April 7, 2017 at 5:23 am
Traverse: It is all about control, never about actual protection of the nature.
Kay G: Nothing wrong about protecting nature - but GW and ecological organizations have nothing to do with it.
Demosthenes · April 6, 2017 at 7:08 pm
Traverse - Still waiting on your assessment of the Republican-led Climate Leadership Council. Are those conservative leaders among those you would disparage with allusions to chicken little?
Traverse · April 6, 2017 at 5:15 pm
As promised, I'm watching the AGW cult freak out... "the sky is falling!"... the sky is falling!" Hey guys, what caused today's bad thunderstorms... tomorrows heatwave... the next hurricane or bad snowstorm? Hmmmm... lemme guess...
Someone pass the pop-corn. ..this is getting good.
Kay G. · April 6, 2017 at 1:24 pm
I just returned from an exceptional presentation entitled "Community Health Town Hall" sponsored by the PATH Foundation, Fauquier Health and the Rappahannock-Rapidan Health District. The data collected and its totally comprehensible presentation to attendees (this was a free and open-to-anyone event that was well publicized) included results showing that not only do genetics, lifestyle choices, and access to healthcare impact our health, but so too does the environment. It doesn't take a lot to read about the elements of our environment that have caused disease and death that are, if not preventable, can at least be made more manageable by our actions. To "Observer", I have to say, I don't understand the degree of your vitriol. There was a serious by-product and consequence in the industrialization of not only our country, but of any country in the world as it evolved through the same process. We became keenly aware of that in the 1970's. It didn't mean putting the brakes on regarding industry, but it did mean awareness, education, remediation, and implementing standards for the future. It's not a religious sect, it's common sense. Whether it be in communities, in businesses, in your own home... if there is a problem, it is better to address it. It may never be perfect, but hopefully whatever the situation it can be made better for everyone. Here is a link to an amazing photographic catalog done in the 1970's. We don't want to go back there... http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/collections/72157620729903309/
Observer · April 6, 2017 at 5:48 am
@ CalHickey: Actually, it will be the opposite. People are realizing more and more that GW is nothing but a religious sect and the whole purpose of it is to make money of useful idiots and take away freedom.
So go, have another childish tantrum down in DC, and remember to brake some shop windows, that's about all you are capable of.
CalHickey · April 5, 2017 at 2:56 pm
John Adams famously said, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
Evidence in the form of irrefutable empirical data confirms the fact that climate change is real and is being driven by fossil fuel consumption. Furthermore, few bodies of fact-based scientific conclusions have ever been validated to the level of rigor that has been imposed by the process of peer review on the more than 27,000 studies that validate the reality and cause of climate change.
The only remaining debatable issues regarding climate change are the time of onset of the negative consequences for humanity, their potential severity, and the means to mitigate them. However, negative consequences ranging from "bad" to "horrific" are baked into the dynamic that is already in motion and delayed action only serves to make the range of probable outcomes that much worse.
Nevertheless, we continue to confront climate change denial that is underwritten by ignorance, blind ideological adherence, a peculiarly vindictive maliciousness, and/or outright vested economic self interest in preserving the status quo.
Just as there are people who are still convinced the Earth is flat and orbited by the Sun there are also people who will remain unconvinced of the reality and cause of climate change. But, we don't waste anymore time nowadays seriously trying to convince any naysayers about the shape of the Earth or the mechanics of the solar system. The advancement of scientific knowledge has reduced them to nothing more than curiously laughable cranks and crackpots lacking any shred of credibility.
The same fate will befall the deniers of climate change because unlike the pursuit of scientific understanding, where various hypotheses are tested against reality to determine which most closely explains empirical observation, their entire argument solely consists of denial without substantiating counter hypotheses. And this denial is routinely delivered in the form of ad hominem attacks, always the favored tactic the ignorant and/or the intellectual dishonest and thus a conclusive indication of the falsity of their arguments.
It's well past time to move on and shake their dust off our sandals. In the meantime, I'll see you at the 22 April March for Science.
Observer · April 5, 2017 at 11:33 am
NOAA scientists upwardly adjusted temperature readings taken from the engine intakes of ships to eliminate the “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record.
The NOAA study in dispute claims the scientists found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming. They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming the temperature record from 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale.”
“As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use,” wrote climate scientists Dr. Patrick J. Michaels and Dr. Richard S. Lindzen of the libertarian Cato Institute on the in the science blog Watts Up With That. “Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable.”
“If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts wrote on the same science blog. “It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise. Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”
Observer · April 5, 2017 at 5:38 am
Just imagine, if Al Gore did not lose the election, there would be no global warming.
Demosthenes · April 4, 2017 at 6:20 pm
Traverse, other conservatives:
Here is a question for you.
What do you make of the "Climate Leadership Council" composed of retired Republicans who are fighting for clean energy policy? This includes former Republican Treasury Secretaries Hank Paulson, George Shultz, and James Baker. The group also includes Republican council of economic advisor chairs (to the president) N. Greg Mankiw and Marty Feldstein. There are a few other former Republican cabinet members in there from the eras of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.
This group has been meeting with Republican members of Congress, as well as White House officials. Their big argument is that climate change is real (yikes!), clean energy will be important in the future even if climate change weren't real, and the Republicans should take back the initiative on clean energy. They say that instead of using regulations to limit pollution (policy of the Democrats), we should tax pollution to limit it, and then use that tax money to make payments out to all Americans as a form of pollution payout that we would all receive to offset higher energy prices.
Where does a true conservative voter like yourself stand on that one?
More importantly, why do you think a group like this exists? Do you think it is significant in any way that the Republicans who are able to form a group like this are all retired? Do you see where all of this is going?
Kay G. · April 4, 2017 at 3:42 pm
As of 23 June 2015, all countries in the United Nations, the Cook Islands, Holy See, Niue and the supranational European Union have ratified the original Montreal Protocol (1987). It might be well worth reading and learning about ozone, and how the breakdown of the ozone layers (by human activity) will allow the sun and pollutants to wreak havoc on the earth and our health. Nothing sensationalist about it. Just real science. http://www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov/science/basics.htm
Traverse · April 4, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Traverse · April 4, 2017 at 12:01 pm
What a bunch of malarkey!
So you're gonna march in the streets to try and change the weather are ya? Well, I'm gonna sit back in my leather chair, make some pop-corn, pop a brewski, and watch you make fools of yourselves, with the AC cranked on 68 degrees.
See that big fusion reactor in the sky? You know... the one that's really hot, and so bright you can't even look at it. There's your source of "climate change".
The climate always has, and always will, continue to change. Watching the AWG cult freak out about it, is just priceless!
Kay G. · April 4, 2017 at 8:45 am
Congressman cherry-picks climate change data from The Washington Post: http://wapo.st/18sLyVt?tid=ss_mail
This is an interesting and informative article to read. The Zimmerman/Doran "study" is deeply flawed... HOWEVER, there are other well-designed studies and research into the thinking of scientists on climate changes... And the conclusion remains that most scientists, and particularly climate scientists, strikingly agree "with the primary conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): that human-generated greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature." Global warming and other environmental damage not only to the earth, but to our health (water, air, etc.), is real. It's why a Republican president with bipartisan support created the EPA. What they saw happening already in the 1970's was real. They thought of the future. Which is what we need to continue to do today.
Tell It Like It Is · April 4, 2017 at 7:40 am
CO, well said. I'll second that!
The article above is nothing more than another screed to incite yet an anti-Trump agenda. The earth is going through a natural warming cycle. There is little to nothing anyone can or should do. Mother nature will always win.
Observer · April 4, 2017 at 6:14 am
What a load of lies and twisted facts. Starts with "Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists agree". Here, read this:
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity could be a “significant contributing factor.”
I know, you are trying to defend your GW sect - because that's all it is; sect or religion - and any means are good enough for GW alarmists.
Enter your email address above to begin receiving
news updates from FauquierNow.com via email.
Friday, January 19
Canadian company would need rezoning and special exception permits to build technology park just north of town
Friday, January 19
What drug stores charge for Narcan, county’s rent for new clinic, dentists in Fauquier and school enrollment in a decade
More Fauquier news
Thursday, January 18
Eight selected properties, including Lake Brittle and Remington homes, could yield more than $2 million