This video with Bob Inglis has been making the rounds over the last week for his excellent commentary on why the United States needs action on global warming and clean energy legislation, as well as some choice words for his Republican colleagues. Since this video has come out, Inglis has given more interviews about the importance of global warming solutions. Unfortunately, Inglis lost his Republician primary earlier this year, but he may be looking to fill a new role as a leading conservative voice on climate solutions, green jobs, and energy security.
This bold rhetoric from Inglis raises a larger question… how can the climate movement create space for conservative voices like Inglis who are excellent at speaking to the climate issue in a way that can resonate with a broader spectrum of the American public? Given the structure of the US political system, climate solutions from the Federal government will require some Republican support for the foreseeable future.
Kudos to Bernie Sanders for telling it like it is in the run up to the failed vote for gutting the Clean Air Act
Yes, as I wrote last winter, there is no climate gate controversy or global warming scandal in the hacked CRU e-mails. Just desperate global warming deniers tripped up on caffeine.
The British House of Commons launched an investigation, and the scientists in question are cleared. You can read the report clearing scientist Phil Jones, whose actions were in question. Here are three central conclusions of the report.
“Conclusion 1: The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.
Conclusion 2: In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity” It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.
Conclusion 3: A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable.”
Image from Climate Progess
You can download it here. A few highlights (although not surprising to anyone who follows the science) is that the rate of global warming has not slowed down in the last decade, and that the year 2010 will likely set a new global temperature record.
He needs to do more of this. For more info, see Wonk Room
The full article by the AP’s John McFarland can be found here. A couple of paragraphs below sum up this one.
“Texas became the first state to challenge the federal government’s finding that greenhouse gases are dangerous to people, claiming Tuesday that the ruling is based on flawed science and would wreck the state’s economy.”
“Al Armendariz, the EPA’s regional director over Texas, said the agency is confident the finding will withstand any legal action. He also said the move isn’t surprising considering Texas’ pattern of opposition to the EPA.
“Texas, which contributes up to 35 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted by industrial sources in the United States, should be leading the way in this effort,” he said. “Instead, Texas officials are attempting to slow progress with unnecessary litigation.”
Business as Usual Scenario
13 government agencies led by the NOAA have put out a comprehensive report titled “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” which spells out a lot of the effects of a changing climate that we face over the next 100 years. There are different projections based on whether or not emissions continue to rise as they are now, or whether certain degrees of action are taken. You can find the report here. The report also breaks down the impact on different regions of the country. The significance of such a report is that the last serious one to come out was in 2000. The Bush administation clamped down on any serious in depth national assessments actually being done or released. The Washington Post has an article out today about this report, and there are some noteworthy lines I want to repeat.
“Harmful effects from global warming are already here and worsening, warns the first climate report from Barack Obama’s presidency in the strongest language on climate change ever to come out of the White House. “Global warming has already caused more heavy downpours, the rise of temperatures and sea levels, rapidly retreating glaciers and altered river flows, according to the document released Tuesday by the White House science adviser and other top officials.”
“This is not a theoretical thing that will happen 50 years from now. Things are happening now.”
“But it paints a fuller, more cohesive and darker picture of global warming in the United States than previous studies and brief updates during the George W. Bush years. Bush was ultimately forced to issue a draft report last year by a lawsuit, and that document was the basis for this new one.”
“White House science adviser John Holdren said in a statement that the findings make the case for taking action to slow global warming – both by reducing emissions and adapting to the changes that “are no longer avoidable.””
“The report compiles years of scientific research and updates it with new data. It was produced by the interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program, relying on government, academic and research experts.”
Here is also a simple yet effective slideshow which depicts some graphs from the report