Help us keep bringing you the Adirondack information you value.
Email
Twitter
RSS
Facebook
The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) is accepting public comment on its draft policy for Renewable Energy Production and Energy Supply.
The purpose of the policy is to provide guidance for the review and approval of renewable energy projects inside the Adirondack Park with regards to the Adirondack Park Agency Act, the Freshwater Wetlands Act and the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act.
The draft policy is available for download from the APA’s website.
According to a press release sent y the APA, the policy is intended to ensure that the APA:
• Embraces the New York State Energy Plan and balances development with the APA Act mandates to protect Park resources;
• Integrates opportunities and concerns for renewable energy production and energy conservation into its Park planning, public education, and project review functions;
• Protects and enhances Park resources and recognizes that renewable energy production and energy conservation are critical to viable, sustainable human communities within the Park and in a state and global context; and
• Incorporates energy conservation measures into its facilities, fleet management and operations.
Address all written comments on this policy to:
Terry Martino
Executive Director
NYS Adirondack Park Agency
P.O. Box 99
Ray Brook, NY 12977
Fax: 518-891-3938
Email – PublicComments@apa.ny.gov
The Agency will accept public comment until December 3rd, 2018.
Related Stories
General inquiries about the Adirondack Almanack should be directed to editor
Sounds like another Cuomo administration action aimed at dismantling the preservation protections of the Adirondack Park…
It is!
This draft policy appears to be a preliminary attempt to attach ‘climate change’ aka ‘global warming’ to the APA mission. The jury is not out yet on the theory of ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’, therefore this draft policy is more than likely premature.
???
The jury is not out on climate change, it’s already been repeatedly observed, even in our area – just ask any local climate scientist, or for that matter any ice fisherman, snowmobiler, or sugar maker who has been around since the 70s.
To argue otherwise at this juncture is to simply ignore the obvious. You are making unsubstantiated claims in opposition to an overwhelming consensus of scientists who actually study the issue.
I believe otherwise. Furthermore I am not in any fashion making any claim whatsoever. What I can state is that there exists as much if not more reasonable scientific arguments that refute the premise of ‘global warming’ as a direct result of mankind’s activity. ‘climate change’ occurs naturally.
Luckily no one cares what an anonymous internet commenter believes about climate science. You’re simply making yourself a laughingstock.
Yeah John. Us anonymous internet commenters don’t know nothin’. Why do we even try to think for ourselves when we could simply do everything you tell us to. Sarcasm?? You bet. Get over yourself John.
Only cowards claim authority anonymously. I didn’t say you don’t have something to contribute. But if you are going to make wild claims against prevailing evidence, the least you can do is identify yourself, let alone explain why you think you’re smarter than most everyone else.
Wow. A few minutes ago, I was simply an uninformed laughingstock commentator. Now I’m a coward because I didn’t identify myself. I guess I’ve moved up the food-chain of the deplorables. I will note that in case you haven’t noticed, most posts on this site are anonymous. If you make identifying oneself a prerequisite for posting, I guess I’d have a decision to make. Let me and all the other anonyouses (word?) out here know if you’re changing the rules. OK?
In my last post, I did include a link to an interesting article purporting to refute a previous writer (also anonymous) who claimed that we (United States) were ‘whistling while the remainder of the world takes the lead in this issue’ . You didn’t see fit to post that link so I assume you are a member of the ‘settled science’ crew who want nothing to do with dissent and disagreement. I can resend a couple links if you like. Let me know.
Gotta go now John. Nice chatting with you.
“You didn’t see fit to post that link”
Nope, that’s just your tendency to see a conspiracy when you don’t understand how something works.
Here it is again John. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html Something to think about.
Your links are not credible, JohnL.
Your perspective is not logical, reasonable or rational, adkDreamer.
Don’t you Climate Change ‘hoax’ worshippers ever get tired of using bogus “smoke & mirrors” attempts to deceive the public?
Climate Change deniers JohnL & adkDreamer, etc., are numerous (multi-aliases) of most likely the same person,
They’ll never overwhelm solid science, despite repeated twisted spin. The Adirondacks needs every clean energy technology available to create jobs & save the Planet Earth.
We’re far beyond the debating point with all the suffering already seen from Climate Change. If nothing is expeditiously done, the Adirondacks will be GONE in 100 years or so. Something to think about, hoax-believer JohnL. We’re in the midst of the 6th Extinction presently, due to Climate Change & Over-population. Normal cognitive awareness makes that obviously very clear ~ if you read.
You’ve posted a rant by a conservative electrical engineer. He starts his rant with: “First, a disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist. In fact, I am not a scientist of any kind.”
This article explains the extent of consensus of actual scientists on anthropogenic global warming: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
“We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming…. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.”
But yeah, you go with some dude on the internet.
adk Dreamer, you are entitled to your personal belief regarding climate change. As you correctly state, you may choose to believe what you like.
However, as a scientist who studies the impact of environment on health, you are unequivocally false in stating that there is “reasonable scientific evidence refuting global warming as a result of mankind’s activity.” That is simply not true. The evidence is overwhelming that current changes in today’s climate are a direct result of human activity. It is not equivalent to previous changes in climate that occur naturally over long periods of time.
While you may disagree over solutions or a level of concern (which scientists nearly universally agree is high), your statement regarding evidence is misleading to readers of this site.
Jesse B,
There was also a lot of political push-back on air and water pollution controls in the 20th century. In spite of this, the US made important strides in reducing pollution. Whether one agrees that current climate trends are “man made” or not, it doesn’t mean we can’t take steps to slow the trends down. The rest of the world sees this. The difference between then and now is poor political leadership because of Big Energy money that has now permeated all aspects of federal and many state governments. That was not the case 60 years ago. They had influence, but didn’t own Congress as they do now. Until the energy interest money and influence is removed from US politics, we will continue to whistle while the remainder of the world takes the lead in this issue.
The remainder of the world takes the lead?? Seriously? Here’s an interesting article about the US role in this issue. I particularly like the part explaining the role of shale/gas production in the reduction of emissions. Also, China has almost DOUBLED their emissions in the last 10 years or so. Just sayin’. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#50e327935355
China is not the rest of the world.
You ARE aware the energy statistics source used in this article are courtesy of British Petroleum? Just sayin’…
I am aware who authored the article. I hope you too, are aware that all the global warming, er, climate change articles/statistics come from people/organizations who get hundreds of millions of dollars to prove their point. Not necessarily find the truth, but prove THEIR point. Findings to the contrary would mean the loss of those millions of dollars.
Climate Change ‘hoax conspiracy’ worshippers JohnL & adkDreamer offer continuous repeated mojibake, vonlenska, chacarron macarron, glossolalia, simlish, gobbledygook, lorem ipsum, grammelot, & gibberish nonsense.
Why waste time reading that?
This is amusing. Ad hominem attacks illustrate the author has exhausted any meaningful support for an argument.
Climate Change ‘hoax’ worshippers:
(( Don’t freak out ~ Figure it out! ))
Below is a complete listing of the articles in ( “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” ) a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:
Stages of Denial,
Scientific Topics,
Types of Argument, and
Levels of Sophistication.
https://grist.org/series/skeptics/
Stages of Denial
There’s nothing happening
Inadequate evidence
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The scientists aren’t even sure
Contradictory evidence
It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
What about mid-century cooling?
Global warming stopped in 1998
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
No consensus
Global warming is a hoax
There is no consensus
Position statements hide debate
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
We don’t know why it’s happening
Models don’t work
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don’t have clouds
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Prediction is impossible
We can’t even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We can’t be sure
Hansen has been wrong before
If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren’t even sure
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Climate change is natural
It happened before
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Greenland used to be green
Global warming is nothing new!
The hockey stick is broken
Vineland was full of grapes
It’s part of a natural change
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
The CO2 rise is natural
We are just recovering from the LIA
It’s not caused by CO2
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
It’s the sun, stupid
Climate change is not bad
The effects are good
What’s wrong with warmer weather?
Climate change can’t be stopped
Too late
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
It’s someone else’s problem
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven’t?
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
Economically infeasible
Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
Scientific Topics
Temperature
There is no evidence
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
What’s wrong with warmer weather?
It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
The satellites show cooling
Global warming stopped in 1998
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
One record year is not global warming
Some sites show cooling
Cryosphere
Glaciers
Glaciers have always grown and receded
But the glaciers are not melting
Sea ice
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Ice sheets
Antarctic ice is growing
Greenland used to be green
Oceans
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Modeling
Scenarios
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
Hansen has been wrong before
Uncertainties
We can’t even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don’t have clouds
Climate forcings
Solar influences
Mars and Pluto are warming too
It’s the sun, stupid
Greenhouse gases
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The CO2 rise is natural
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
The US is a net CO2 sink
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Aerosols
What about mid-century cooling?
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Paleo climate
Holocene
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Greenland used to be green
The hockey stick is broken
Vineland was full of grapes
We are just recovering from the LIA
Ice ages
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
Global warming is nothing new!
Geologic history
What’s wrong with warmer weather?
Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
Climate is always changing
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
Scientific process
Global warming is a hoax
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
There is no consensus
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Position statements hide debate
If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren’t even sure
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Types of Argument
Uninformed
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
One hundred years is not enough
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
What’s wrong with warmer weather?
Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
There is no consensus
We cannot trust unproven computer models
Misinformed
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Antarctic ice is growing
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
Greenland used to be green
The satellites show cooling
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
It’s the sun, stupid
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Vineland was full of grapes
Cherry Picking
It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic sea ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
Global warming stopped in 1998
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Vineland was full of grapes
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
The sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
Urban Myths
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
Greenland used to be green
Hansen has been wrong before
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Vineland was full of grapes
FUD
The temperature record is simply unreliable
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
Mars and Pluto are warming too
It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
There is no consensus
Antarctic ice is growing
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
We can’t even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
What about mid-century cooling?
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
Mauna Loa is a volcano
Global warming is nothing new!
The CO2 rise is natural
The hockey stick is broken
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
The models don’t have clouds
Global warming stopped in 1998
If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
The scientists aren’t even sure
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Vineland was full of grapes
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
We are just recovering from the LIA
Non Scientific
Global warming is a hoax
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven’t?
Hansen has been wrong before
Position statements hide debate
The scientists aren’t even sure
Consensus is collusion
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Levels of Sophistication
Silly
There is no evidence
Global warming is a hoax
One record year is not global warming
Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
Mars and Pluto are warming too
Mauna Loa is a volcano
Naive
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven’t?
It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
We can’t even predict the weather next week
We can not trust unproven computer models
The satellites show cooling
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
The models don’t have clouds
Global warming stopped in 1998
It’s the sun, stupid
If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren’t even sure
Vineland was full of grapes
Some sites show cooling
Specious
The temperature record is simply unreliable
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
What’s wrong with warmer weather?
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
There is no consensus
Antarctic ice is growing
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
Greenland used to be green
What about mid-century cooling?
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
Climate is always changing
Global warming is nothing new!
The CO2 rise is natural
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
Hansen has been wrong before
Position statements hide debate
But the glaciers are not melting
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Consensus is collusion
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Vineland was full of grapes
Scientific
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
Chaotic systems are not predictable
The hockey stick is broken
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
We are just recovering from the LIA”
End quote.
( Credible facts link at top )
Your welcome, ‘lost in space’ hoaxers..
FACT: Climate Change is real.
This thread is so amusing. The truth, if it can even present itself somewhere, will certainly not be found on this site which in its entirety is an entertainment and social media platform only. One’s belief is ultimately supported by what one chooses to read/observe and how much of that one chooses to believe. No one, and certainly not in this social media platform, is going to convince anyone of anything. Make all the claims one wishes and it changes nothing. Point a reader to any study on a subject and another is available which supports a counter viewpoint. No one really cares that much about any one’s comments or viewpoints regardless of clear identity or anonymity.
Yeah, I know that. I just hate to see arrogant editors make fun of the people who are supposed to be their customers.
Entertaining and funny! Someone just posted a really long list of ‘How to talk to a climate skeptic’ – the article posts of which are over 10 years old – just old, defeated arguments that are not scientific but more like a religion.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”
For 13 years you’ve been able to read the Adirondack Almanack for free.
You’re welcome.
I don’t remember thanking you, but maybe I did. Anyway, if it wasn’t free, you’d be a lonely man.
They do take donations…
Dear APA and All Whom Are Connected with This Renewable Energy Production Policy:
This ridiculous notion for the above stated renewable energy policy was just made aware to me through the “Adirondack Almanac” website.
I just recently had to sell my home at a reduced price and move, because of a wind farm being erected surrounding my former property. It created so much noise and infrasound, it was unbearably unlivable for me. I experienced daily headaches, earaches and sleep deprivation. So, while renting a small house with most of my belongings stored in a metal container, I spent approximately a year and a half searching for a new home that I could afford and close enough to work in the Adirondacks. I thought I would be protected from such atrocities happening again.
There is no safe distance from these so-called “renewable” energies for either humans, natural environments or wildlife health/concerns. Aesthetic and property values involving the Adirondack Park due to wind, solar, or other such development would be obliterated.
Today’s technology does NOT safely, economically, or logically coincide with our governments’ ideas of how to approach renewable energy.
This supposed renewable energy policy within the Adirondack State Park is a ludicrously BAD idea!!!
The fact that this is being proposed during the holidays and public comment is reduced to a couple weeks is completely underhanded and sneaky!
Whatever happened to “Forever Wild”???
Is there no safe place to live in New York State???
Sincerely Scared & Angry!!!
Kevin Sigourney
“I’m not entitled to have an opinion unless I can state the arguments against my position better than the people who are in opposition. I think that I am qualified to speak only when I’ve reached that state.”
— Sage wisdom of Charlie Munger, ~ V.P. of Berkshire Hathaway.
( Truth & science still matter, thank goodness! )
‘Deplorables’ anti-realism arguments are anti-reality; not dissent.
Posting disagreements about factually proven worldwide scientific consensus must have a truthful basis & rationale; ( not just for disagreement argument sake, as JohnL said. )
Contesting known Climate Change reality by ( spinning intentional doubt & uncertainty tactics ) is deceiving the public by deception. Manipulating public sentiment & truthful facts using false conjecture is dishonorable.
We agree with John Warren, with all due respect & deep appreciation for this site. Sincere Kind Regards to all.
On point!
This is so amusing.
Just to be clear, I am quite sure that all agree that C02 is not/has not ever caused any warming trends… ever. This was proven more than 10 years ago using the climate alarmists own data (both data sets). So the shift in focus is now the examination of ocean temperature (deltas). Unfortunately that has fallen victim to the climate alarmists very own serious statistical errors – or the manipulation of them to be more accurate. I am pretty sure this story is being buried: https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/17/resplandy-et-al-part-3-findings-regarding-statistical-issues-and-the-authors-planned-correction/#more-24474
Not to worry though readers! I am anonymous, and reading the link above just may be harmful to climate alarmists views! Of course, if you are not well versed in statistical methods it may be a difficult read and I am sorry for that.
Perhaps we can all save up and take a cruise through the Northwest Passage where we can discuss the situation face-to-face.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/09/first-came-an-arctic-luxury-cruise-next-comes-arctic-shipping/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.86cfb8cdf6c1
In the meantime we can sit back and watch the world deal with sea-level rise.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/
If the DoD is taking the issue seriously, perhaps the DEC is justified in exploring mitigation options as well.
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/
At least some parts of the US government are taking climate change seriously. We can argue about the cause as a stalling action or as a political statement, but rational people cannot deny change is occurring. All data can be manipulated by statistics to show whatever we want, but a steady ice-pack loss and sea-level rise illustrates something is happening – regardless of massaging statistics to show only what we want.
We are all learning about climate science in real time. No one has a definitive solution. No one has a plan of action. We can fund government or global scientific efforts to learn as much as we can as fast as we can, or we can keep adding to greenhouse gasses and work against finding a path to mitigation. Ultimately, because each of us has an impact, each of us need to contribute to finding what we can and what we can’t do to slow and stabilize the process. Denying the science and diverting attention by pointing fingers accomplishes nothing. But I suppose today, unity is an impossibility.
Science will make mistakes along the way, but the scientific process is driven by mistakes. In many respects, science and the industrial revolution has led us to this situation. I suppose we could rely on religion, crossing our fingers, or fate to adapt to the problem, but for now I choose to put my faith is science – and perhaps a benevolent alien society…
This is forever amusing. One comment references a purported ‘consensus article’ on global warming. anthropogenic global warming (AGW): http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
This article clear states in the Introduction “An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy”
At the very least, the article is telling the reader up front that the thrust of the article is to bolster public support for climate policy. No science is provided whatsoever.
The data basis of the article is from a report back in 2004 (Oreskes), the add-on ‘consensus’ statistic provided at 97% (that is 97% of scientists agree with AGW) is based upon a 14% response rate of scientists.
Well, 14% of respondents is more than likely not representative of any usable fact. Saying 97% of 14% is not very convincing ‘evidence’ of anything.
Higher math. Not much room for emotional response. I enjoyed the article with all the delta and mu data, although I am 97% convinced that far less than 14% of the readership here understands such things even on the most fundamental level. I am also 97% sure that is a major contributing factor to the entertainment value of the comments section.
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is happening and that it is due to human activity. Despite claims to the contrary, there is no scientific debate over this fact. The recent 2018 Climate Report released by the White House (https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/) unequivocally states this as fact. It is the product of over 1,000 contributors, 13 federal agencies, has been peer reviewed, and cites thousands of scientific papers. The report also confirms the international findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/), that likewise was the product of hundreds of international authors using data from around the globe.
These are comprehensive consensus decisions achieved by reviewing tens of thousands of published papers and independently concluded by separate groups with thousands of authors. To argue that debate exists based on the opinion of a handful of bloggers or negative findings is entirely misrepresenting the truth and not reason to dismiss or muddy the overwhelming evidence. While we may differ on what to do about it, climate change is real and happening.
“World must triple efforts or face catastrophic climate change, says UN
Rapid emissions turnaround needed to keep global warming at less than 2C, report suggests.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/27/world-triple-efforts-climate-change-un-global-warming?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Guardian News Quoted:
“Countries are failing to take the action needed to stave off the worst effects of climate change, a UN report has found, and the commitments made in the 2015 Paris agreement will not be met unless governments introduce additional measures as a matter of urgency.
New taxes on fossil fuels, investment in clean technology and much stronger government policies to bring down emissions are likely to be necessary. Governments must also stop subsidising fossil fuels, directly and indirectly, the UN said.
Gunnar Luderer, one of the authors of the UN report and senior scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said: “There is still a tremendous gap between words and deeds, between the targets agreed by governments and the measures to achieve these goals.
“Only a rapid turnaround here can help. Emissions must be reduced by a quarter by 2030 [to keep warming to no more than 2C (35.6F) above pre-industrial levels] and for 1.5C emissions would have to be halved.”
In all, a tripling of effort may be needed to keep warming to less than 2C, meeting scientific advice on avoiding the most dangerous effects of climate change.
Greenhouse gas emissions continued their long-term rise last year, according to the UN, but they could be brought under control. There are promising signs, such as investment from the private sector in renewable energy and other technologies to cut carbon, but these are currently insufficient to meet scientific advice.
Joyce Msuya, deputy executive director of UN Environment, said: “The science is clear: for all the ambitious climate action we’ve seen, governments need to move faster and with greater urgency. We’re feeding this fire, while the means to extinguish it are within reach.”
Global emissions have reached what the UN has called “historic levels” of 53.5 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, and are showing no signs of peaking, despite a levelling off in the past decade.
Last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned of the dire effects of allowing global warming to reach 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. The world has a little over a decade to bring down greenhouse gas emissions before such dangerous levels of warming become inevitable.
Only 57 countries, representing 60% of global greenhouse gas emissions, are on track to cause their emissions to peak before 2030. If emissions are allowed to rise beyond that, the IPCC has said countries are likely to breach the 1.5C limit, which will trigger sea-level rises, droughts, floods and other extreme weather events.
On Monday, the biggest review of climate change in the UK for a decade found that flooding was likely to become more severe and summers could become more than 5C hotter within 50 years.
The UN’s warning comes before key talks in Poland next month, when governments will meet to discuss how to implement the commitments made in Paris in 2015. According to the Paris agreement, the first global pact to bind both developed and developing countries to a specific temperature goal, governments must do all they can to stop warming reaching 2C above pre-industrial levels, with an aspiration to limit warming to no more than 1.5C.
Jian Liu, the chief scientist at UN Environment, said some of the necessary policies were clear and available, if there was political will to implement them. “When governments embrace fiscal policy measures to subsidise low-carbon alternatives and tax fossil fuels, they can stimulate the right investments in the energy sector and significantly reduce carbon emissions. If all fossil fuel subsidies were phased out, global carbon emissions could be reduced by up to 10% by 2030.”
Carbon pricing is one way of achieving this, but has run into difficulties as taxes are often unpopular and schemes to reduce carbon through emissions trading are often contested by businesses and other interests.
Greenhouse gas emissions stalled soon after the global financial crisis of a decade ago, then quickly resumed their rise, to the consternation of climate experts. For three years before 2017 they fell once again, but last year there was an increase. Emissions are expected to rise further this year, pointing to an emissions gap between what countries promised in Paris and what their policies are delivering.
Another problem is that infrastructure such as buildings, transport networks and energy generation that is built now to rely on fossil fuels will in effect lock in future emissions for the lifetime in which that infrastructure operates, usually up to 50 years.
Changing the way we construct infrastructure is therefore essential, but many companies and governments still rely on old measures of economic performance and old ways of generating energy and constructing buildings.
Jennifer Morgan, the executive director of Greenpeace International, said: “The window of opportunity is starting to close and if we fail to act now the opportunity will be gone. Failure to act will lock in catastrophic global warming that will change the planet irrevocably and condemn millions to suffering. What are governments waiting for?”
Stephanie Pfeifer, the chief executive of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, said some businesses were taking action. “Investors understand the opportunity presented by the move to a low-carbon economy. The right signals from government will help to unlock low-carbon investment from the private sector.””
End quote.
THERE IS NO ENTERTAINMENT IN CLIMATE CHANGE SUFFERING HAPPENING NOW, FOLKS! >>> Please take it very seriously plez. The consequences are horrific.
How to get more people to read credible news, hopefully!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2018/nov/27/donald-trump-us-politics-russia-investigation-latest-live-updates?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Guardian News Quoted:
“Bernie Sanders: Trump a ‘total phoney’
Bernie Sanders said Tuesday that climate change is “not a debatable issue” and “the future of the planet is at stake,” after a US government report predicting dire consequences from the changing climate.
“The scientists have told us – despite Trump’s absurd thought that this is a hoax – that the future of the planet is at stake,” the Vermont senator said on CNN’s “New Day,” adding that climate change is “not a debatable issue to my mind.”
Trump said Monday that “I don’t believe” the National Climate Assessment issued by his own government.
The analysis concludes climate change could cost the US economy hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives each year in future.
“The American people have got to stand up and say, for the sake of their children and their grandchildren, ‘We are going to have to take on the greed of the fossil fuel industry, who consider their short-term profits more important than the kind of lives my grandchildren will have,’” Sanders said on CNN.
Sanders also tore into Trump as a “total phoney and political opportunist”.
“He moves with the wind, and right now he’s an extreme rightwinger, because he thinks that’s how you get votes,” he said.” End quote. ~ Guardian News 3 hours ago.
Wow. Bernie said it?? Why didn’t you say that in the beginning of this discussion. That changes everything.
Once you get to this point there is no hope. Like the person says above they “believe”. That’s all you have to know they are not talking about facts but their beliefs.
The science is real. Climate change is happening, humans bear some responsibility. If you don’t want to accept that it is fine. You don’t base what you know on science.
The same people that will stand strong behind the science on climate change will tell you that GMO’s are not safe because one totally debunked scientific study showed a link between glyphosate (Roundup) and cancer in rats. All the other science (as the national academy has reported twice now) shows that GMO’s are as safe for humans to eat as non-GMO alternatives.
People stand behind the science that supports their particular agenda these days and ignores what they don’t like. Same goes for the lunatics that think it is not a good idea to vaccinate their children because of some phony balcony information they saw online that looked real.
There is no difference between them and the POTUS saying he doesn’t believe the report made by his own administration on climate change.
So if you are going to criticize him (and we should) and you are an anti-GMO or anti-vaccine person look in the mirror.
I give up.
Antirepub says: “We’re in the midst of the 6th Extinction presently, due to Climate Change & Over-population. Normal cognitive awareness makes that obviously very clear ~ if you read.”
We are losing species left and right yet who is aware of this? You never hear about this on Fox News or any of the right wing media which is 90% of what’s out there. They are misleading the american people!…deliberately so I might add. This explains why all of the idiots!
John Podesta quoted from Guardian News link below:
“As a warming world wreaks havoc, Trump wages war on climate science.”
“The US administration’s politicization of science has led to big budget cuts for data and analysis. Others must fill the gap.”
Quote:
“The evidence of climate change is all around us, from melting Alaskan permafrost to wildfires in Sweden, from the brutal European heatwave to the devastating 2017 and 2018 hurricane seasons, which have claimed thousands of lives and caused billions of dollars in damage in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and North Carolina. In recent weeks, the worst wildfires in California history have wiped entire towns off the map and killed scores of people. The recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warning of mass wildfires, superstorms, food shortages and dying coral reefs by 2040 was a cry for immediate action.
Climate change will make the next global crash the worst | Larry Elliott
But as climate change is happening in real time, the practice of climate science –collecting data, observing and analyzing the Earth’s systems and communicating those findings to decision-makers and the public – has never been at greater risk. That’s why I am in Brussels this week speaking to European Union parliamentarians on the unprecedented threats facing the global understanding of climate change as a result of the Trump administration’s hostility to climate science, and discussing what European countries can and should do in response.
Even though the need for high-quality reliable scientific data on the causes and effects of climate change has never been higher, the politicization of climate science in the United States has reached regrettable new lows. The Trump administration has twice now issued budget proposals that sought to dramatically reduce funding for or outright eliminate the collection and analysis of data about Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and geological, biological and energy systems. All told, across all 13 US federal agencies that play a role in federal climate and energy data and science programs, the Trump administration’s budgets would have yielded cuts of 13.2 to 16.8%, according to an analysis released in June by the Center for American Progress.
The Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts – and their other efforts to interfere with the practice of science – matter because the United States has long been the world’s pre-eminent source for climate and energy data and analysis. The US government’s role in making this data publicly available at no cost further enables users around the globe to advance their own understanding of climate change, which is critical to reducing risk and saving lives. In every aspect of research and analysis of the Earth and its climate, immense, detailed data sets undergird the decisions of leaders in government, the military and business, and the actions of farmers, ranchers, engineers and planners around the world.
So far, Congress has responded to the Trump administration’s provocative budget requests by acting on a bipartisan basis to restore and even increase funding for many vital climate science programs. But the care that appropriators have shown for science, and particularly for climate and energy data and research, can only go so far. Political appointees in the Trump administration retain a great degree of discretion which they can exercise over how these appropriated funds are actually spent.
For example, Nasa’s Carbon Monitoring System, which enabled observation and analysis of global carbon sinks and sources, saw its $10m budget eliminated because a single line item fell through the cracks in the appropriations process and administration officials seized the opportunity to cut the program.
Outside advisory boards of experts who helped translate federal climate science into usable information for state and local policymakers and businesses have seen those longstanding councils disbanded with little notice.
It’s little wonder that the US government’s leading career atmospheric and oceanic scientists are leaving in frustration
Of highest consequence to the international scientific community, the Trump administration has dramatically cut or altogether ceased funding to the IPCC, the World Meteorological Organization’s Global Climate Observation System (GCOS), and other United Nations climate research bodies.
These and other budget cuts and policy changes are taking place against a backdrop of troubling stories of scientists being sidelined within their agencies, prohibited from traveling or presenting their findings, or seeing the public-facing resources they helped write erased from government websites. It’s little wonder that the US government’s leading career atmospheric and oceanic scientists, with decades of experience, are leaving in frustration with an administration that ignores their work.
Scientists and policymakers in Europe and the United States alike need to stay alert to signs of political interference in climate and energy data collection that will limit our capacity to understand and respond to the warming planet, whether that interference occurs in the United States or elsewhere. If the Trump administration fails to fund the satellites, climate models, Arctic flights and other scientific investments needed to produce and interpret vital climate and energy data, other champions, including European agencies and governments, will need to step up to fill in any data, monitoring and research gaps that could set back our understanding of climate change and its impacts.” End quote.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/27/climate-change-science-data-trump-administration-?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Book recommendation:
‘The Sixth Extinction’ ~ An Unnatural History ~ By Elizabeth Kolbert ( Copyright 2014 )
Book inside cover quote:
“Over the last half billion years, there has been five major mass extinctions, when the diversity of life on Earth suddenly and dramatically contracted. Scientists are currently monitoring the sixth extinction, predicted to be the most devastating since the asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs. This time around, the cataclysm is us.”
End quote.
OMG. John Podesta said it TOO? NOW I believe.
This thread is hysterical and amusing. Podesta, news media, politics, good data, bad data, read this, read that, it never ends folks.
Return to the Eocene epoch with palm trees and alligators in the Arctic and warm and equitable weather everywhere on the earth – I am all for that. New theories of what caused the end of the Eocene include plate tectonics and orbital variation as major causes. If man is even around for another round of the end of an Eocene type epoch, someone will report that there will be some way to stop it.