30/03/2017

'Climate Change Is Real': Companies Challenge Trump's Reversal Of Policy

The Guardian - 

Mars Inc, Staples, The Gap and others speak out against Trump’s sweeping executive order that begins to dismantle Obama’s Clean Power Plan
‘We will continue to support the EPA’s clean power plan,’ says the vice-president of environmental affairs at Staples. Photograph: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters
In 2015, when Barack Obama signed the nation’s clean power plan, more than 300 companies came out in support, calling the guidelines “critical for moving our country toward a clean energy economy”. Now, as Donald Trump moves to strip those laws away, Mars Inc, Staples and The Gap are just a few of those US corporations who are challenging the new president’s reversal on climate policy.
“We’re disappointed the administration has decided to roll back climate regulations such as the clean power plan and others,” Edward Hoover, senior manager of Corporate Communications for Mars, told the Guardian. “Corporations can’t do it alone. Governments play a critical role in mitigating the effects of climate change on our economy.”
The responses come just a day after Trump, flanked by cheering coalminers, signed a sweeping executive order that begins to dismantle steps taken by the Obama administration to cut emissions under the Paris agreement negotiated in 2015. Under the agreement the US had agreed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 26-28% by 2025 as compared with 2005 levels.
“We will continue to support the EPA’s clean power plan and the reduction of carbon emissions associated with electrical power generation,” added Mark Buckley, vice-president of environmental affairs for Staples, calling it “smart business”.
The centerpiece for this reduction was the clean power plan, billed in 2015 as the strongest action ever on climate change by a US president but criticised by some for targeting coal-fired power plants, which release more carbon and fine particulate material than other fossil fuels.
That was when some of the nation’s most recognizable brands signed a letter to the National Governors Association backing their commitment to the reductions, arguing that better regulation would drive innovation and create jobs, rather than stifle them, as Trump went on to repeatedly suggest during the 2016 campaign.
“We believe that investing in a low-carbon economy will not only help foster a healthier environment, it is also a key to unlocking new business growth potential for the US and around the world,” said Gap Inc spokesperson Laura Wilkinson. The clothing manufacturer produces the popular Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic brands. Wilkinson added that the company would continue to “advocate for low carbon policies that will help ensure a healthier and more prosperous future”.
Hoover, whose company is the maker of candies like M&Ms, Skittles, Snickers and Twix, added: “We believe the science is clear and unambiguous: climate change is real and human activity is a factor. As a food business, our supply chain and those who work in it are threatened by its impacts.”
Trump, for his part, has called climate change a “hoax”. Asked by the Guardian this week if Trump accepted the science of manmade climate change, a senior White House official replied: “Sure, yes, I guess.”
Levi Strauss and the eco-oriented Seven Generations cleaning and paper supply company also confirmed their commitment to the 2015 agreement in statements to the Guardian. “We stand firm in our support of the clean power plan,” said Ashley Orgain, manager of mission advocacy for Seven Generations. “Climate change is harming our health now, some of us more than others.”
Even fossil fuel giant Exxonmobil has chimed in to recommend the US stay on course with the Paris agreement, calling it “an effective framework for addressing the risks of climate change” in a letter to Trump last week. It’s worth noting though, that the energy conglomerate deals mainly in oil and natural gas, not coal, and hopes to gain market share under an agreement that would phase out coal-fired plants.

Links
at No comments:

Great Barrier Grief Missing From The Australian

ABC Media Watch

Media Watch  Great Barrier grief missing from The Australian

The Australian offers scant coverage about the latest bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. But now to the Great Barrier Reef and an important story that some in the media have ignored.
As viewers of Channel Nine's 60 Minutes discovered last night in a powerful and moving report, the reef is being hit by a dramatic new wave of coral bleaching:
TOM STEINFORT: Charlie has brought me here to Pixie Reef, an ironic name for a place that's in such a sorry state. All around us is bleached and dying coral, right in the heart of the Great Barrier Reef.
— Channel Nine, 60 Minutes, 26 March, 2017
This latest dire threat to the reef has been widely reported in the media since February, when a rash of headlines echoed a grim official warning from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority:
Great Barrier Reef authority warns of widespread bleaching again this year.
— ABC.net.au, 24 February, 2017
Two weeks later, the threat level was raised further, after official surveys revealed much greater damage than feared.
And once again came a flurry of headlines. With the British tabloids, American broadsheets. And Canadian TV now getting in on the act, along with many others.
Then, just days ago the respected science magazine Nature ran the story on its cover.
Publishing the results of a worldwide study led by scientists from Queensland's James Cook University, which warned that damage to the Barrier Reef caused by climate change could be fatal.
And for the third time in a month, the media swung into action:
KATE LEONARD-JONES: Our national wonder in peril. This sobering view confirming what scientists feared, hundreds of square kilometres of coral dead or dying.
DAVID WACHENFELD: For the second consecutive year we have mass coral bleaching event.
KATE LEONARD-JONES: An event previously unheard of until 20 years ago.
— Channel Seven News Brisbane, 10 March, 2017
And once again it made waves around the world. In the New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The BBC. And more, with the message that the reef could only be saved if climate change is halted.
But one place you couldn't read any of this was The Australian newspaper, which has had no mention at all in its print edition.
And how amazing is that? Here is arguably the most important environmental story in Australia and a tourism asset that's worth billions of dollars a year. Yet the Oz does not consider it worth reporting, except in a couple of clips online.
Even more remarkable, The Australian's environment editor, Graham Lloyd, who describes himself as:
… a fearless reporter on all sides of the environment debate.
— The Australian
has also had absolutely nothing to say. Extraordinary isn't it? In fact, Lloyd's been silent on coral bleaching since mid-last year when he reported that scientists had exaggerated the problem. That it wasn't too bad. And that the scientific world was divided.
Media Watch ripped into that article at the time because Lloyd relied heavily to make his case on a bird migration specialist from California called Jim Steele.
Who was not an expert on coral reefs. Or on oceans. Or on global warming,
Lloyd hit back in The Australian accusing us of Bleaching the Facts and:
… scientific bullying to squash discussion of genuine concerns about the Great Barrier Reef.
— The Australian, 25 July, 2016
He also said he was not ignoring coral bleaching but that he preferred to rely on:
… the more sober analysis of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority …
— The Australian, 25 July, 2016
Which of course is the authority behind all this year's warnings. So now Graham Lloyd is ignoring them too. As well as an army of experts like Professor Charlie Veron the so-called godfather of coral now sounding the alarm:
PROF CHARLIE VERON: A lot of people say oh it's just a normal, natural thing. There's nothing normal and natural about this. 20 years ago this would have been a fabulous place, it was a fabulous place. It was just teeming with life and now its teeming with death
— Channel Nine, 60 Minutes, 26 March, 2017
So why are Graham Lloyd and The Australian so busy looking the other way on such a tragic and important story? The Australian declined to explain. But our guess is it just doesn't fit their narrative.

Links
at No comments:

PBS Is The Only Network Reporting On Climate Change. Trump Wants To Cut It

The Guardian - 

During a record-breaking hot presidential election year, American news networks failed to report on climate change
Oscar the Grouch from Sesame Street. Photograph: Everett/REX/Shutterstock
Media Matters for America has published its annual review of American evening newscast climate coverage for 2016, and the results are stunning:
In 2016, evening newscasts and Sunday shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox Broadcast Co.’s Fox News Sunday, collectively decreased their total coverage of climate change by 66 percent compared to 2015
In all of 2016, these news programs spent a combined grand total of 50 minutes talking about climate change. More than half of that come from CBS Evening News, which nevertheless only spent half as much time talking about climate change in 2016 as it had in 2015.
Network climate change coverage in 2015 and 2016. Illustration: Media Matters for America
It’s certainly not as though 2016 lacked newsworthy climate stories. We learned in January that 2015 had smashed the record for hottest year, previously set just a year earlier. And 2016 just kept getting hotter, with nearly every month setting a new heat record. In September, the US and China agreed to formally ratify the Paris climate agreement. The list goes on and on, with newspapers like The Guardian constantly publishing important climate-related news throughout the year.
During 2016 there was also an ongoing presidential campaign in which the candidates’ views on climate science and policy should have been featured prominently. Unfortunately, climate change was rarely raised in the primary debates, and never in the general election debates. In fact, on Sunday news programs, Bernie Sanders brought up climate change four times more often than the program hosts.
Number of times Sunday news show hosts and Bernie Sanders brought up the topic of climate change in 2016. Illustration: Media Matters for America
Only after the election did news networks finally examine what a President Trump would mean for the Earth’s climate:
ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News Sunday did not air a single segment informing viewers of what to expect on climate change and climate-related policies or issues under a Trump or Clinton administration. While these outlets did devote a significant amount of coverage to Trump’s presidency, airing 25 segments informing viewers about the ramifications or actions of a Trump administration as they relate to climate change, all of these segments aired after the election.
As Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) noted, this was a dismal failure by the American news networks:
In a year when the American people were deciding who our next leader should be, you would think there would have been more discussions about climate change in our news programs, not less. This isn’t just shameful, it’s irresponsible. The climate is changing, and it’s affecting everything from the weather to our national security and our economy. Its impacts are already being felt and the American people deserve to know more about it.
PBS was the oasis in this desert of climate news coverage. PBS NewsHour was the only show that examined what impact a Trump or a Clinton presidency would have on climate-related issues and policies before the election. The PBS news program aired more than double the number of climate news segments as any of its network competitors, and interviewed or quoted three times more scientists than even CBS Evening News. ABC World News Tonight failed to interview or quote a single scientist about climate change.
Number of network evening news program climate segments in 2016. Illustration: Medai Matters for America
Perhaps unsurprisingly given his climate denial, Trump’s proposed budget would completely defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which partially funds PBS. About half of that federal funding goes to local PBS stations that broadcast PBS NewsHour. Some of those stations – especially those in rural areas which rely particularly heavily on federal funding – would likely have to shut down, were Trump to get his budgetary wish.
With so little news coverage on the subject, it’s also unsurprising how confused Americans are about climate change – just 49% of Americans realize that most scientists think global warming is happening, and only 53% understand that humans are causing the problem. While concern among Americans about global warming is at an eight-year high, only 64% worry a great deal or fair amount.
That’s entirely understandable – if our leaders deny the problem, and our news networks don’t report on it, Americans are lacking the information signaling that global warming is an urgent threat. That’s why, although Americans (including Trump voters) would prefer that their political leaders take steps to address the problem, they don’t few it as a high priority, and thus aren’t bothered by the lack of political action.
When future generations look back in disbelief at our failure to take the needed steps to preserve a stable climate, the history books will take a harsh view of today’s media outlets and political leaders who refused to inform the public or protect its health and welfare in the face of such an immense known threat.

Links
at No comments:

Donald Trump's Anti-Climate Plans Won't Fool Nature

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Donald Trump on Tuesday in the White House. The US President signed an executive order winding back his predecessor's climate policies. Photo: Bloomberg
Back in 1983, well before the fossil fuel industry realised it had a climate problem, the physics and chemical impacts of burning coal, oil and gas were uncontroversial.
As US President Donald Trump unveils his plans to roll back his predecessor Barack Obama's climate change policies and end his "war on coal", it's worth a reminder the basic science has been settled for decades no matter what politicians do.

Trump Sacrificing Future for Fossil Fuels
President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Tuesday that will suspend, rescind or flag for review more than a half-dozen measures in an effort to boost domestic energy production in the form of fossil fuels.

The Earth had an "effective temperature" that was a balance of solar radiation it received and what it radiated back to space, I learnt as a Harvard freshman in my Science A-30 atmosphere course.
Our atmosphere was "an insulating blanket" keeping the planet's surface at about 298 degrees Kelvin (25 degrees) compared with space's 3 degrees K, according to class notes I found while sorting some old boxes.
Wind and rain lashes Airlie Beach as Cyclone Debbie blows in on Tuesday. Photo: Dan Peled
Alter the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - back then it was rising at 1.2 parts per million a year or less than half the present rate - and you would warm it up.
Lecture notes from 1983 underlining the build-up of carbon dioxide at that point. It's now about double that pace. Photo: Peter Hannam
Other consequences included melting tundra that would release the more potent greenhouse gas, methane, while oceans would become more acidic as they absorbed more carbon from the air.
'Exceedingly bad'
Among my notes was a 1983 paper by the US National Research Council that argued global warming impacts from burning fossil fuels on poorer nations "could be exceedingly bad news".
The paper warned of "claims for compensation as a matter of right may emerge" from affected populations, requiring "welfare aid".
Those lecture notes were unremarkable - if alarming - decades ago.
Since then, politicians in nations such as the US and Australia - often at the bidding of fossil industry donors and certain media outlets - have seeded sufficient voter doubt to stymie the introduction of consistent policies needed to curb carbon emissions.
Trump's rollback of US policies fit the pattern even if they face fierce legal battles and are likely to be delayed or made less radical in the process.
Atmosphere lecture notes from 1983. Photo: Peter Hannam
And his efforts to open up federal lands to coal miners and scrap other limits on coal-fired power plants are unlikely to lead to a massive jump in coal output because gas and increasingly renewable energy are already pricing coal out of the market.
As in Australia, Trump will find investors are wary of building new coal-fired power that may face a future carbon price or other curb.
Trump has so far failed to fulfil his campaign promise to pull the US out of the Paris climate pact. His executive order signed on Tuesday, though, will make it harder for America to meet its promise to cut emissions by 26 per cent on 2005 levels by 2025. (Australia has a similar goal - but is aiming to reach it five years later.)
The damage may be mostly economic in the short term if American support for renewable energy research is cut - as the Trump budget seeks - and the energy market gets tilted more in favour of fossil fuels over clean sources such as wind and solar.
China, the world's leader in most renewable energy rollout, will likely extend its lead.

 Science moves
The National Research Council in the US was already assessing the risks from climate change back in 1983. Photo: Peter Hannam
Some politicians, mostly on the right, in places such as Australia are already lining up to say their country should follow the US in depleting already insufficient efforts to tackle climate change.
National pledges made in Paris in 2015 fall far short of keeping global temperature increases to 1.5-2 degrees above pre-industrial times. Even if fully implemented - an outcome make less likely by Trump's policies - warming is headed towards three degrees or more by century's end.
For the planet, the science hasn't shifted but only become more refined.
Each rise of one degree in the atmosphere lifts its capacity to hold moisture by 7 per cent. That means the potential for bigger storms increases, as any first-year lecturer will tell her students.
Big storms such as Cyclone Debbie are projected to become more common, with a bigger clean-up bill for all of us to pay - even if media commentators and most politicians would prefer not to mention the link.
The fact the world's coral reefs - including our Great Barrier Reef - will largely be long gone if the temperature rises anywhere near 3 degrees - and we are one degree there already - is also well understood to scientists.
More complex changes are also afoot with new research regularly improving our partial understanding of the consequences of climate change.
These include signs that the jetstream over the northern hemisphere is weakening, allowing weather patterns to get stuck more often - bringing more extreme warm and cold spells.
Science, in other words, is moving on. It's time we demanded our politicians kept pace.

Links
at No comments: