Top 5 Reasons US Pulling Out of Paris May Not Be a Bad Thing After All

Snowflakes were melting all over the Internet. The sky was falling and people forgot all about secret messages encoded in typos from the Tweeter-in-Chief.

On Thursday, US President Donald Trump did what everyone suspected he would, despite the advice of some of his closest advisers, corporate heads, and even a family member, he pulled out of the Paris Agreement.

Did President Trump Intend to Poke the Polar Bear?

I'm not convinced he really knows what he did or even what's actually in the Paris Agreement.

Like many of Trump's decisions, this one seemed knee-jerk, ill-informed, and spiteful.

He wants to renegotiate to get a better deal?

The agreement is non-binding, each country gets to set its own targets and decide how to get there, and almost every country is involved.

What more do you want?

Look, I'm not convinced these big global agreements do much good. I've long argued that there's more hot air and fewer teeth in these types of global pacts than a nonagenarian who's just eaten a bowl of chili. 

But with the Paris Accord, at least everyone was participating -- everyone, that is except Syria, which is too war-torn to commit to anything, and Nicaragua, which didn't think the agreement went far enough.

Renegotiate? Come one, Donny, even some of the best deal makers in the world could see this was a pretty sweet deal, considering how much polluting we've been able to get away with over the past 257 years since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Under the Paris Accord, developed countries will contribute towards the so-called Green Climate Fund, intended to be the main fund for financing global climate change projects in the context of mobilizing $100 billion by 2020. The fund is designed to help poorer countries reduce their emissions and address the impacts of climate change. 

The price tag for the US is a meager $3 billion -- $1 billion of which was already paid by the Obama administration.

Folks, that's less than $10 per person to help fund such projects as "development of irrigation and groundwater replenishment systems in northeastern India, where climate change has made monsoon rains less reliable; a hydropower plant in the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific to eliminate diesel generators; and restoration and protection of Ugandan wetlands that are used by subsistence farmers," according to the New York Times.

(To put this in perspective, Business Insider reported last year that people around the world spent over $10 billion on beverages at Starbucks in 2015. At Starbucks alone!) 

In any event, what's done is done. Well, there is that nasty business of the time it takes to actually withdraw from the agreement. By some estimates, the process won't be completed until the day after the next presidential election in 2020.

The reaction to this threatened withdrawal, however, has prompted some unintended consequences --perhaps Donny really is a genius and his decision was meant to encourage states, cities, companies, and individuals to act, and spur private investment to address climate change. 

Here are my top 5 reasons the US Pulling out of the Paris Agreement may not be a bad thing after all:

1.) Climate change "ratings" went way up. Okay, well, Google searches on "Paris Accord" hit an all-time high on Thursday around 3PM Eastern, and then quickly dropped back down to normal. However, "climate change" tracked along with it on the uptick and, arguably, got more attention in the media in any 24-hour news cycle since Superstorm Sandy hit.

2.) Rather than prompting countries to abandon the Paris Accord, Trump's withdrawal seems to have strengthened the resolve of many of other countries. Some, such as China, see the US withdrawal as an opportunity to increase their share of the pie when it comes to addressing the issue. As Reuters reported on Thursday, China and the EU pledged to come together to fill the leadership void created by the president's decision.

3.) US cities, States, and companies are stepping up their game in response to Trump's trashing of the agreement, as the Times reported Thursday.  

4.) Captains of the private sector, including leaders of Goldman Sachs, Disney, Tesla, and Apple have recommitted to tackling the issue. Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein even joined Twitter to voice his disappointment, and billionaire Michael Blomberg pledged $15 million to help tackle climate change.

5.) Trump's pulling out of Paris may have poked the polar bear. By doing so, he may have awakened a force to be reckoned with -- the many organizations and individuals already committed to finding solutions to the climate change issue, especially those who have been on the front lines of the environment, social justice, and renewable energy for decades. It may also serve as a wake-up call to many others to take action.

In the end, the decision to withdraw may be heralded as a catalyst to finally getting the world to rally around the climate in an unprecedented way. Perhaps not what the Donald intended with his reality-show build-up and reveal in the Rose Garden, but potentially a pretty good ending.

Pulling Out of Paris Agreement is Bad for Business

Should we stay or should we go?

President Trump is following the advice of entrenched, vested old-economy interests that would turn our backs on a bright economic future. If his vision to make America great again requires further dependence upon fossil fuels like coal and oil, then we are headed back into the Dark Ages. 

The Paris Agreement isn't a lock on the bridge.
It is the bridge.

Explain to me how ceding the economic prosperity represented by energy innovation, and climate mitigation and adaptation to China and India makes us great? 

Leaving the Paris Agreement throws our climate and future economic success under a bus. In doing so, Trump ignores the pleas of his Secretary of State, his daughter, several conservative Republicans, and many of the most successful high-growth company leaders in the US. This isn't just sad, it's a bad decision.

Staying in the Paris Agreement is good for business, as CEOs of 30 companies with major operations in the United States, including Dow Chemical, Proctor & Gamble, Goldman Sachs, and Coca-Cola (not exactly greenies!) argued in a 10 May letter to the President. 

Why? Because, as an ad that ran in major U.S. newspapers, including the New York Times, New York Post, Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere, which was signed by technology giants like Apple, Facebook, Google, Gap, HP, along with energy and utility powerhouses National Grid, PG&E, and Schneider Electric, explained, the Paris Agreement spurs economic growth in the United States by strengthening competitiveness, creating jobs and markets, and reducing business risks.

When even ExxonMobil (and its former CEO, Rex Tillerson, now Secretary of State) supports the Paris Agreement and believes the oil company "has a constructive role to play in developing solutions," it's hard to understand what is motivating the President to pull out at this stage.

The Paris Agreement provides a level playing field for all countries -- except Nicaragua and Syria, which are the only two countries refusing to sign (great company, huh?), provides certainty for businesses and investors, which in turn allows for long-term planning and investment, and encourages market-based solutions and innovations that can benefit our economy, build a new manufacturing base, and create a future-focused industry.

Pulling out of the Paris Agreement is bad for business, bad for the planet, and a bad deal.

An Email from Santa Claus to Climate Skeptics: An Annual Green Skeptic Tradition

Back in 2006, I published this email from Santa, which arrived on the night before the night before Christmas. Readers had so much fun with it, it's become an annual tradition. Enjoy!

Happy Holidays!

_______________________

TO: Global Warming Skeptics

FROM: Santa Claus

DATE: A few nights before Xmas

SUBJECT: My Christmas List

_________________________

This is Santa, writing from the North Pole. Soon I'll be gathering all the toys for all the good little girls and boys and packing them in my sleigh to begin our journey, our night of nights.

The reindeer, however, are starting to complain about hoof-rot. Apparently, they've been standing around in too much slush. This has put me in a decidedly prickly mood this Christmas.

You know me; I'm not a single-issue guy. I believe that as long as you are good, and I mean good for goodness' sake, you deserve some slack on the other stuff. I'm an equal opportunity distributor. I know whether you've been bad or good or just plain evil. You also know I'm not one to discriminate against one group of people or another, believers or non-believers.

But this year is different. This year, I'm making a few changes to my list. I'm checking it twice and have decided that the naughty include any one of you out there who do not believe in global warming. All you climate change skeptics out there, you are on the naughty list this year.

Oh, you know who you are. And I've got one special gift for you: Nothing but COAL. You like the stuff so much -- and it's such a big part of what's leading to climate change -- you might as well have bags and bags of it and nothing more.

Make no mistake. Global warming is happening. You don't have to show me any scientific reports, although some nifty ones have shown up in my email box lately, sent to me from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

No, you don't have to convince me; I'm a believer. All I have to do is look out my window to my back yard, what's left of it! It's a soupy mess out there.

We usually have a good bit of ice up here at the North Pole -- and early. That's important, too; you see, every year the elves and I construct a temporary workshop up here where we make the toys and assemble the other goodies. The earlier the ice, the sooner we get started.

Although I have figured out a way to deliver the entire shipment of gifts on my list in one night, I still haven't perfected the manufacturing process. I can't speed it up. (Some of that I blame on the unions.)  We need all the ice we can get up here for there is no solid ground.

But this year, the ice cover was the lowest it's been in almost 30 years. And at least one of those science groups studying this stuff tells me that, according to their models, by 2040, we'll have mostly open water up here. (They sent me this short animation clip, which sends chills up my spine: Arctic Ice Melt.)

Mrs. Claus has even started looking for Houseboats on Craig's List!

So, dear boys and girls, you better not pout or cry or whine or deny climate change any longer. And I'm telling you why: because climate change is coming to town. Time's a wasting. We need to do something about this now, before it's too late. Or before I have to move all of my operations to the South Pole!

Here's wishing a carbon-neutral Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

S. Claus, North Pole

Top 10 Reasons You Won't See Me at the People's Climate March

"This is an invitation to change everything."

Right. 

So says the notice about the (so-called) People's Climate March. It goes on to say, 

"In September, world leaders are coming to New York City for a UN summit on the climate crisis. UN Secretary­ General Ban Ki-­moon is urging governments to support an ambitious global agreement to dramatically reduce global warming pollution.

With our future on the line and the whole world watching, we’ll take a stand to bend the course of history. We’ll take to the streets to demand the world we know is within our reach: a world with an economy that works for people and the planet; a world safe from the ravages of climate change; a world with good jobs, clean air and water, and healthy communities."

Blah, blah, blah. Yet another UN summit on climate change that will result in a lot of hot air and empty promises, grand-standing, and long-winded proclamations and "commitments" that will never be fulfilled. No accountability, no solutions, just a lot of blah-blah and rhetoric and well-meaning folks taking to the streets.

Go ahead and march if you want. Hopefully, it's a nice fall day and you can enjoy being outside. And hopefully, the NYC Police Department will be on its best behavior and won't choke-hold marchers or tear-gas them.

Don't you know you can count me out. Why? Don't I believe that climate change is real? Am I really that much of a skeptic?

Yes, I believe the climate is changing, in some ways irrevocably and with consequences we'll have to deal with in the near- and long-term, and in other ways we have no way of knowing what we've set in motion or how to stop it. I've witnessed it first-hand in places near and far.

But marches and UN summits will never solve this problem, and the strident, petulant voices leading the charge will never be heard. It's just wasted energy (and wasted carbon from all that travel) that could be better spent finding, supporting, and investing in solutions. 

"Bend the course of history"? I'm sorry People's Climate March, you won't even succeed in bending anyone's ear long enough to make a modicum of difference.

So here's my Top 10 Reasons You Won't See Me at the People's Climate March in New York City on September 21st:

10. Because even though John Lennon is one of my heroes, "Power to the People" was never one of my favorite Lennon songs.

9. "People, Planet and Peace Over Profit." I'm not an either/or kind of guy. Besides, without profit, no change is a-coming, people. Find a way to make it profitable, and the change you seek will be the change we get.

8. One word: "portapotties." 

7. The Patriots-Raiders game is on CBS at 1:00 PM Eastern.

6. The last time a UN summit on climate change accomplished something tangible and lasting was...was...anybody?

5. I actually have to be in Brooklyn with three of my six kids. (Whoa, before you shout me down, these three are stepchildren!)

4. Because I really don't mind telling my grandkids that I wasn't at "the largest climate march ever." It may be that, but it will only be a blip on the radar screen of history. 

3. "Hope Not Heatwaves." Seriously, they are still hanging on to that Hopey-Changey-Promisey stuff. How exactly did that work out again? 

2. Because the whole world may not actually be watching, but some folks from the NSA may be and they'll be taking GPS coordinates on your ass from that day on.

And, finally, the Number 1 reason you won't see me at the People's Climate March:

I prefer to focus on solutions and meaningful, measurable, and sustainable action on climate change rather than hot air, empty promises, and acerbic rhetoric. 

"To Change Everything, We Need Everyone," says one placard produced by the PCM. But they don't really believe that any more than the Koch Brothers believe they are a "model company for a clean environment."

Just more empty rhetoric and hot air. March on and turn your lights off, people, and try not to trip over your own naivete.

We all want to change the world, but this march isn't going to change anything.

Ten XL-sized Myths From Both Sides of Keystone Pipeline Debate

As some 35,000 opponents to the Keystone Pipeline gathered in front of the White House yesterday trying to persuade President Obama to just say no to the pipeline, I reflected upon some of the myths about the pipeline that have been bandied about by both sides on the issue.

Keystone XL protest in Washington.
(photo by Shadia Fayne Wood/Project Survival Media
via 350.org)

There are, as in most things, no absolutes in this debate. Digging deeper than the rhetoric and sloganeering, we find that both sides exaggerate the impacts of the Keystone Pipeline, the positives and the negatives.

Here are ten myths about the Keystone XL Pipeline (KXL), some of which I shared on the Payne Nation radio show a little over a year ago:

1.) Stopping KXL will help stop climate change - With the potential to transport an estimated 590,000 barrels a day, KXL certainly has a large carbon footprint. Yet, it is really only a drop in the barrel of global contributions to greenhouse gases. And if KXL is stopped, there is no guarantee there won't be alternatives to getting this oil to market; in fact, there are at least two proposed alternatives through western Canada being considered.

2.) KXL will create tens or hundreds of thousands or even millions of jobs - Jobs will be created, certainly, in the US, Canada, and probably elsewhere. But it is too difficult to substantiate the claims of either proponents or opponents, which range from one million to 200,000, and from 15,000 to "as few as 20" once construction is completed. Of curious note, according to one source, in TransCanada's 2008 original permit application, the pipeline developer claimed "a peak work force of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel." Temporary construction jobs, that is, and probably "person-year" jobs (i.e. 1 person working full-time for one year.) 

3.) Tar sands oil is not worse for climate change - Proponents of KXL claim that tar sands oil only produce 6 percent more carbon than conventional crude oil, but other reports estimate the amount to be more than 20 percent. Whatever the amount, there is certainly going to be an increase, which could lead to health risks from emissions and potentially increase the costs associated with increased climate instability.

4.) America needs the tar sands oil - The oil from KXL was never intended for US markets. It will make its way to the Gulf Coast refineries, where it will likely be put on the more lucrative global market. TransCanada stated as much in a presentation to investors, suggesting greater profits for the company. Besides, with greater fuel efficiency standards, our need for oil may in fact be decreasing not increasing.

5.) The US should buy oil from a friendly neighbor like Canada rather than hostile countries - The US has steadily been reducing its dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf for years. In fact, according to data from the Energy Information Administration, Canada and Latin America already supply more oil than Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East.  

6.) Tar sands oil will lower gas prices in the US - According to several studies, KXL oil will have little or no impact on overall US gas prices, which are set by a much more complicated set of global market factors.

7.) Tar sands oil will increase gas prices in the US - Again, KXL oil will have little or no impact on gas prices across the US, although according to a recent study, it could increase prices in the US Midwest by 10-20 cents per gallon, as the oil bypasses that market and heads south.

8.) Oil leaks from the existing pipeline have little impact on the environment - Proponents of the pipeline like to downplay the environmental impacts of oil leaks. However, the existing Keystone pipeline, to which the one under debate would be an extension leaked at least 12 times in 2011, including one spill in North Dakota that amounted to 21,000 gallons of oil, and a different tar sands pipeline spilled over 840,000 gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010. Such spills have an economic impact as well. The costs of the Kalamazoo River cleanup exceeded $650 million. 

9.) Tar sands oil will reduce US dependency on foreign oil - It depends upon how you define "foreign oil." Arguably, Canada is still not a part of the US and, even if some of this oil were to make it into the US market, in the scheme of things, it matters little where oil comes from in what is a complex, interdependent global market. And, if the tar sands oil will be refined in Port Arthur, TX, by a refinery half-owned by Saudi Aramco, as some suggest, where does the oil come from after all? 

10.) Building the KXL is inevitable - This argument has been made by proponents for years -- and even a few environmentalists. The latter suggest trying to stop KXL diverts attention from coming up with the full suite of solutions we'll need to wean ourselves from fossil fuels over the long haul, invest in alternative energy, and address climate change. 

I remain skeptical about the claims on both sides of the Keystone Pipeline, but I hope that the Obama administration will take a look at all the data and come to a reasonable decision about what to do, rather than give in to the side with the largest wallet or most strident voice.

An Email from Santa Claus to Climate Skeptics: An Annual Green Skeptic Tradition

A few Christmases ago, I published this email from Santa, which arrived on the night before the night before Christmas. Readers had so much fun with it, it's become an annual tradition. Enjoy!

Happy Holidays!

Scott, aka The Green Skeptic

_______________________

TO: Global Warming Skeptics

FROM: Santa Claus

DATE: A few nights before Xmas

SUBJECT: My Christmas List

_________________________

This is Santa, writing from the North Pole. Soon I'll be gathering all the toys for all the good little girls and boys and packing them in my sleigh to begin our journey, our night of nights.

The reindeer, however, are starting to complain about hoof-rot. Apparently, they've been standing around in too much slush. This has put me in a decidedly prickly mood this Christmas.

You know me; I'm not a single-issue guy. I believe that as long as you are good, and I mean good for goodness' sake, you deserve some slack on the other stuff. I'm an equal opportunity distributor. I know whether you've been bad or good or just plain evil. You also know I'm not one to discriminate against one group of people or another, believers or non-believers.

But this year is different. This year, I'm making a few changes to my list. I'm checking it twice and have decided that the naughty include any one of you out there who do not believe in global warming. All you climate change skeptics out there, you are on the naughty list this year.

Oh, you know who you are. And I've got one special gift for you: Nothing but COAL. You like the stuff so much -- and it's such a big part of what's leading to climate change -- you might as well have bags and bags of it and nothing more.

Make no mistake. Global warming is happening. You don't have to show me any scientific reports, although some nifty ones have shown up in my email box lately, sent to me from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

No, you don't have to convince me; I'm a believer. All I have to do is look out my window to my back yard, what's left of it! It's a soupy mess out there.

We usually have a good bit of ice up here at the North Pole -- and early. That's important, too; you see, every year the elves and I construct a temporary workshop up here where we make the toys and assemble the other goodies. The earlier the ice, the sooner we get started.

Although I have figured out a way to deliver the entire shipment of gifts on my list in one night, I still haven't perfected the manufacturing process. I can't speed it up. (Some of that I blame on the unions.)  We need all the ice we can get up here for there is no solid ground.

But this year, the ice cover was the lowest it's been in almost 30 years. And at least one of those science groups studying this stuff tells me that, according to their models, by 2040, we'll have mostly open water up here. (They sent me this short animation clip, which sends chills up my spine: Arctic Ice Melt.)

Mrs. Claus has even started looking for Houseboats on Craig's List!

So, dear boys and girls, you better not pout or cry or whine or deny climate change any longer. And I'm telling you why: because climate change is coming to town. Time's a wasting. We need to do something about this now, before it's too late. Or before I have to move all of my operations to the South Pole!

Here's wishing a carbon-neutral Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

S. Claus, North Pole

Related articles

• The war on Santa Claus (and Superman) (climateprogress.org)
• "Wikileaks releases alleged US Candid Assessment of Santa Claus, North Pole" and related posts (lifeafterjerusalem.blogspot.com)
• Santa Claus: All children will be rated by flying robots (guardian.co.uk)
• Texts, Web really do allow Santa to be everywhere (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Air Van Moving Company Confirms its Ties to the North Pole this Holiday Season (prweb.com)
• 9 Books About The 'Real' Santa Claus And The History of Christmas (PHOTOS) (huffingtonpost.com)
• 10 YouTube Videos That Prove That Santa Exists (socialtimes.com)

Our Climate War: FRONTLINE's "Climate of Doubt"

We're in the midst of an uncivil "Climate War" that pits Climate of Fear vs. Climate of Doubt.

Last night I watched a program called "Climate of Doubt," FRONTLINE's hour-long take on the influences and influencers who have reshaped the climate change debate over the past five years.

It was decidedly one-sided, unfortunately, and painted the skeptics and questioners with the same brush as the tobacco lobby and other malcontents.

Some of the tactics they used may have been learned from smoke and mirror campaigns, but it doesn't make their questioning any less valid. (More on that later.)

I'm often asked whether I am a climate skeptic. After all, my blog is The Green Skeptic. My answer is always the same: No, I am not a climate skeptic. (I consider myself a moderate, (Teddy) Roosevelt Republican, those statements combined effectively put me out of the running for any political office.)

I believe the climate is changing, I've seen it with my own two eyes in places as far afield as Alaska, Indonesia, and even the northeast where I live.

But I also believe that skepticism is a hallmark of human nature and it should be applied in liberal (pardon the usage) doses to every human endeavor, whether business, environmental or intellectual.

Skepticism is also a healthy part of the scientific method as hypotheses are formulated, tested, and modified.

On the subject of the climate, my views are simple and I've said all this before here and in my appearances on FOX Business's Varney & Company:

1.) The climate is changing, but the true impacts are unknown, perhaps even unknowable;
2.) Some of that change is caused by man, but not all;
3.) We should focus on the cheapest ways to mitigate climate change while simultaneously insuring against the most likely potential changes that could have big impacts on our health and safety (changes in disease vectors, sea level rise near our coastal cities, impacts on food production); and
4.) There is huge potential investment opportunity in affordable solutions that may actually encourage prosperity not prevent it.

Now, back to my earlier comment about questioning.

The folks who are questioning the consensus of opinion or the validity of the science are neither necessarily wrong nor right. They may be looking at the data in ways that back up their arguments as much as anyone else who wants to prove a point. They may also be trying to deliberately confuse people about the issue, as the FRONTLINE program suggests, to create just such a climate of doubt.

Of course, as journalist John Hockenberry asked one of his interviewees last night, "What if you're wrong?"

The question could be asked about either side. Frankly, we won't know who is wrong or right until it's too late.

What really troubles me about the FRONTLINE program last night is that we've lost all foundation for rational, reasonable debate in this country. We have become a nation of blamers and attackers. Anything we don't agree with is shouted down rather than reasonably argued against. It happens on both sides of the issue and good people are getting hurt in the process.

There is a difference between passion and zeal, and we've lost sight of that difference.

We need to get back to rational, reasonable dialogue and a healthy skepticism and away from attack ads, smear campaigns, and trying to prove who is right.

We need to meet in the middle and develop cost-effective solutions to mitigate the impacts of even the most modest scenarios and, perhaps we'll end up promoting prosperity while insuring we're around to enjoy it.

We need to take a chill pill and create a climate of collaboration and put an end to this climate war.

Is Global Warming Dead? The Green Skeptic on FOX Business

I sat down to do a "lightning round" on environmental issues with Stuart Varney on FOX Business this morning. We talked about global warming, car emissions, and green jobs.

According to Stuart, I took two out of three -- although I think it may be more like 3-0 -- and I got the last laugh!

Here's the video:



And in case your browser doesn't support the format, here is a link: The Green Skeptic on FOX Business

What We Talk About When We Talk About Protecting and Saving

This post originally appeared on The Green Skeptic in March 2008, when I was about to speak at the Aspen Environment Forum. It's reprinted here as I am on hiatus from writing the blog. I promise to be back at it soon. Meanwhile, I hope you enjoy this piece. --Scott

##


Everything we think about saving or protecting ecosystems and habitats is wrong.

This week, I'm at the Aspen Environment Forum, where tomorrow morning I'll be on a Panel called "Nature's Place: Saving Ecosystems and Habitats."

For the better part of 15 years I worked with The Nature Conservancy to save some of the world's "Last Great Places" around the world (I left in August; see my posts reflecting on my career at TNC
and here.

I consider myself a conservationist, not an environmentalist. What I mean by that is a conservative and prudent approach to our use of resources that requires us to manage them for the long-term -- for the benefit of people today and for future generations.

The Green Skeptic grew out of an increasing concern about our relationship to the natural world and how we protect it. I am a skeptic in the sense that I believe we need to constantly challenge the assumptions we have about "saving ecosystems and habitats."

In my view, we operate under four basic assumptions:

1. We can continue to "save" or "protect" ecosystems and habitats from harm in perpetuity;
2. We can ignore basic human needs and treat poverty alleviation as a separate issue from the environment;
3. We can entrust protection to governments and corporate NGOs;
4. We can't trust human ingenuity and community to manage its own resources.

First, I need to step back and look at the words we use. (I am a poet, so words matter to me.) Specifically, "protecting" and "saving."

Both imply we need to keep ecosystems and habitats from something. The American Heritage Dictionary defines protecting as "To keep from being damaged, attacked, stolen, or injured; guard." When we use the word protecting in terms of ecosystems and habitats, we are guarding nature from something or someone, presumably humans.

Saving is a little less problematic, as it implies a conservative approach to the future (as in saving seed corn for next year's sowing). Still, the AHD's first definition is "To rescue from harm, danger, or loss." It's not until definition number three that we get to the conservative impulse: "To avoid spending (e.g. money) so as to keep or accumulate it."

The question is not about what we should save, but how and for what purpose.

Is it hubris to assume we have protected or saved anything? We promote the fact that percentages of ecosystems or habitats are protected, but they continue to be encroached upon -- see the Amazon Rainforest for example.

What have we really saved if massive changes from climate change or the drive for much-needed economic development will have significant impact on the future status and makeup of places, habitats, and ecosystems?

Climate change will disrupt many ecosystems that exist today -- much as the Internet disrupted print media, the travel industry, TV, bookstores, you name it. It will change everything.

So the question is what are we really protecting when we talk about protecting ecosystems and habitat? Will the places we select for protection today be the same 10-20 years from now? Probably not.

Ecosystems are constantly changing, either from "external" (human) or "internal" (natural) forces. Change is inevitable and could, in the face of global warming, be dramatic.

Shouldn't we be preparing for the changes and begin to think about how we adapt to some of the most likely changes, those brought on by climate change or economic development or basic human needs, such as for food and energy?

Demand for energy and food will drive economic development for years to come and we can't continue to ignore these drivers to "save" the natural, non-human world.

This leads me to assumption two, which is about ignoring basic human needs. It's irrational for us to think that people in developing countries, many of whose basic human needs are not being met, will care deeply about the non-human natural world.

Yet, we continue to have blind faith in our cause and ignore the needs of real people.

I recently returned from India where the extreme poverty is evident almost everywhere you look. Also evident is a growing middle class that strives for the kind of lifestyle we have here in the west, specifically the US, with its inherent accelerated pace and impacts.

Who are we to say that people in developing countries have no right to the kind of lifestyle we have exported for decades? We can not convince, persuade or cajole or even pay people -- Americans as much as people in developing nations -- to "come around to our way of thinking," and yet this is what I hear whenever I talk to environmentalists.

And we can't ask poor people around the world to forgo the comforts of the lifestyle we have been living, and which they wish to copy, "for the sake of the planet" or to set aside their habitats and ecosystems for the sake of humanity. No country wants to become an ecological reserve for the world, especially if it means it cannot pursue economic prosperity.

Try floating this idea with people who go hungry every night for lack of food or money to buy food and see what kind of reaction you get.

In the end, poor people matter. And the governments of Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and African countries must be concerned first and foremost with the well-being of their people. I'm not saying that human well-being isn't tied to ecosystem health; I'm a strong believer that economic growth is tied to those resources.

I believe we can no longer separate the issue of economic development and poverty alleviation from ecosystem health. We also can't expect that governments whose people aren't meeting basic needs to protect their habitats over the economic well-being of their people.

Which leads me to assumption three: increasingly, we are entrusting protection of habitats and ecosystems with the wrong people. Governments have a mandate to improve the economic health of their country and people.

Yet we continue to have faith that these governments will "do the right thing" and enforce laws protecting their forests or other ecosystems in the face of seemingly insurmountable economic obstacles.

Why do we think that is a good strategy? What indicators do we have that tell us this strategy will succeed where it hasn't in the past? Why do we think that the World Bank program to pay countries to "avoid deforestation" will be any more successful than their previous grand plans?

The same goes for NGOs. NGOs are basically corporations that serve a set of shareholders (donors in this case) who subscribe to a specific idea of Nature and a specific set of outcomes, outcomes that may not necessarily be shared by all stakeholders.

This idea of Nature has for a long time discounted the needs of people both today and in the future. To illustrate this, one only need look at the environmental community's approach to government debt.

Conservation groups (my old employers among them) have promoted using a country's debt as leverage to gain conservation protection. The debt-for-nature swap was an innovation of the past couple of decades and a noble one. But it was also painfully ignorant of the true nature of that debt -- in many cases "dictator debt" incurred by regimes that did not have its people's best interests in mind.

Now that we have a more clear understanding of how that debt was derived, and can no longer ignore its immoral origins, we need to give up or adjust the debt-for-nature swap concept and join the call for debt forgiveness. That will free some countries from having to exploit their natural resources to pay down that debt.

Yet, many in the environmental community continue to push the debt-for-nature strategy, because they can't let go of a good thing that advances their agenda.

How is this different from any corporation -- a sector many environmentalists attack -- that advances its agenda at the expense of people here and abroad? Can we really trust ecosystems and habitats to big government or big international non-governmental corporations?

In the end, wouldn't a better approach be to put our trust in the people and the communities where these ecosystems and habitats are found? They have the most at stake in managing these resources, as their needs and livelihoods are most closely tied to the lands and waters.

I believe human beings are basically good. I also believe that, given the opportunity, communities will manage their common interests and keep each other in check. This is the open-source community approach one finds in social networks and in business models such as eBay.

I also believe that human beings are the most creative and adaptable species on the planet -- just look at the variety of habitats, climates, and conditions we inhabit. Our resilience as a species is astounding. I argue that we need to embrace this resourcefulness and apply it to overcoming ecological shifts, climate change, and loss of ecosystems and habitats.

We need to unleash the power of human creativity to find new ways to "save" those places for future use by both human and non-human species.

Unleashing this human capacity will require suspending our assumptions. We will need to focus more on community-based or "commons-based" management (as Jonathan Rowe of the West Marin Commons in California calls it in a recent essay in The State of the World 2008).

We need a people-centered conservation that addresses the real needs of real people, and to empower individual entrepreneurs and communities to manage their resources cooperatively rather than impose grand plans from Washington.

We need to clearly draw the lines connecting economic prosperity with ecological health and human well-being.

And, finally, we need to unleash human creativity to find new technological solutions as well as new ways of living with nature.

This may, in the end, be our only hope to really save habitat and ecosystems – and, ultimately, to save ourselves.

An Email from Santa to Climate Skeptics: An Annual Green SkepticTradition

A few Christmases ago, I published this email from Santa, which arrived on the night before the night before Christmas. Readers had so much fun with it, it's become an annual tradition. Enjoy!

And have a Happy Holiday.

Scott, aka The Green Skeptic
_______________________


TO: Global Warming Skeptics
FROM: Santa Claus
DATE: A few nights before Xmas
SUBJECT: My Christmas List
_________________________

This is Santa, writing from the North Pole. Soon I'll be gathering all the toys for all the good little girls and boys and packing them in my sleigh to begin our journey, our night of nights.

The reindeer, however, are starting to complain about hoof-rot. Apparently, they've been standing around in too much slush. This has put me in a decidedly prickly mood this Christmas.

You know me; I'm not a single-issue guy. I believe that as long as you are good, and I mean good for goodness' sake, you deserve some slack on the other stuff. I'm an equal opportunity distributor. I know whether you've been bad or good or just plain evil. You also know I'm not one to discriminate against one group of people or another, believers or non-believers.

But this year is different. This year, I'm making a few changes to my list. I'm checking it twice and have decided that the naughty include any one of you out there who do not believe in global warming. All you climate change skeptics out there, you are on the naughty list this year.

Oh, you know who you are. And I've got one special gift for you: Nothing but COAL. You like the stuff so much -- and it's such a big part of what's leading to climate change -- you might as well have bags and bags of it and nothing more.

Make no mistake. Global warming is happening. You don't have to show me any scientific reports, although some nifty ones have shown up in my email box lately, sent to me from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

No, you don't have to convince me; I'm a believer. All I have to do is look out my window to my back yard, what's left of it! It's a soupy mess out there.

We usually have a good bit of ice up here at the North Pole -- and early. That's important, too; you see, every year the elves and I construct a temporary workshop up here where we make the toys and assemble the other goodies. The earlier the ice, the sooner we get started.

Although I have figured out a way to deliver the entire shipment of gifts on my list in one night, I still haven't perfected the manufacturing process. I can't speed it up. (Some of that I blame on the unions.) We need all the ice we can get up here for there is no solid ground.

But this year, the ice cover was the lowest it's been in almost 30 years. And at least one of those science groups studying this stuff tells me that, according to their models, by 2040, we'll have mostly open water up here. (They sent me this short animation clip, which sends chills up my spine: Arctic Ice Melt.)

Mrs. Claus has even started looking for Houseboats on Craig's List!

So, dear boys and girls, you better not pout or cry or whine or deny climate change any longer. And I'm telling you why: because climate change is coming to town. Time's a wasting. We need to do something about this now, before it's too late. Or before I have to move all of my operations to the South Pole!

Here's wishing a carbon-neutral Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

S. Claus, North Pole

Related articles

• The war on Santa Claus (and Superman) (climateprogress.org)
• "Wikileaks releases alleged US Candid Assessment of Santa Claus, North Pole" and related posts (lifeafterjerusalem.blogspot.com)
• Santa Claus: All children will be rated by flying robots (guardian.co.uk)
• Texts, Web really do allow Santa to be everywhere (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Air Van Moving Company Confirms its Ties to the North Pole this Holiday Season (prweb.com)
• 9 Books About The 'Real' Santa Claus And The History of Christmas (PHOTOS) (huffingtonpost.com)
• 10 YouTube Videos That Prove That Santa Exists (socialtimes.com)

Skeptics, Solyndra and Setbacks, oh my: The Green Skeptic on Fox Business

I sat down with Stewart Varney & Company this morning at Fox Business to talk about climate skeptics, Solyndra, and setbacks, oh my...

Here is the video:



And here is a link in case the viewer doesn't function in your browser: The Green Skeptic on Fox Business

Time to Sell That Ocean Front Property? New Study on Sea Level Rise

Could Calvin Be Underwater?

The rate of sea level rise along the U.S. Atlantic coast is greater now than at any time in the past 2,000 years, according to a new study published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The study suggests a consistent link between changes in global mean surface temperature and sea level.

"Having a detailed picture of rates of sea level change over the past two millennia provides an important context for understanding current and potential future changes," says Paul Cutler, program director in NSF's Division of Earth Sciences.

"It's especially valuable for anticipating the evolution of coastal systems," he says, "in which more than half the world's population now lives."

The researchers developed the first continuous sea-level reconstruction for the past 2,000 years, and compared variations in global temperature to changes in sea level over that time period.  They then compared their reconstructions with tide-gauge measurements from North Carolina for the past 80 years, along with global tide-gauge records for the past 300 years.

North Carolina has been identified by NOAA as one of three states with significant vulnerability to sea level rise and has its own task force, the North Carolina Sea level Rise Risk Management Study, to examine the issue.

The NSF team found that sea levels have risen by more than 2 millimeters per year on average since the 19th century, the steepest rate for more than 2,100 years.  (That is, I must mention, .07874 of an inch each year, but it does add up over time.)

At the very least, some researchers suggest such a continued rise in sea level could add up to increased flooding, land loss, and the incursion of saltwater into rivers and marshes -- or it could be dramatically worse.

Another report, released in May by the Oslo-based Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), suggested that coastal communities, cities, and planners may want to prepare for a sea level rise of between 3 to 5 feet (0.9 meters - 1.6 meters) by century's end.

That means the beachfront property you are enjoying this summer could be underwater.  Perhaps it's time to start looking at those "future beachfront lots" currently located on higher ground.

Wind Speeds Increasing On World’s Oceans, Study Says

Ukiyo-e coloured woodcut by Hokusai

Yale Environment 360 reports on a new study in the journal Science,Global Trends in Wind Speed and Wave Height," suggests that wind speeds and wave heights have been rising. What does this mean for storms?

"Average wind speeds and wave heights have been rising on the world’s oceans over the last quarter century, a trend that could portend more intense storms, hurricanes, and cyclones, according to a new study. Using satellite altimeter data from 1985 to 2008, Australian researchers calculated that wind speeds increased 0.25 to 0.5 percent per year, and overall had increased 5 to 10 percent during that time.

"The most pronounced increases were observed during extreme wind events — in comparison with mean conditions — which increased about 0.75 percent annually, according to the study, published in the journal Science. Ian Young, a professor at the Australian National University at Canberra and lead author of the study, said it is unclear whether it is a temporary phenomenon or the result of global climate change, although he added, 'If we have oceans that are warming, that energy could feed storms, which increase wind speeds and wave heights.'" 

Read the study here (subscription or purchase required): Wind & Waves.

Related articles

• World's Winds Getting Stronger, Creating Taller Ocean Waves (livescience.com)
• Australia study finds wind speeds steadily increasing (lookatvietnam.com)
• Global gale warning (sciencenews.org)
• How is a tropical storm different from a hurricane (wiki.answers.com)

Green Skeptic Friday LinkFest - 03/25/11

Indian Point Nuclear Plant on Hudson

We've been gearing up for the Cleantech Alliance Mid-Atlantic's 3rd Annual Mid-Atlantic Cleantech Investment Forum, which takes place at Philadelphia's Academy of Natural Sciences on Thursday, March 31st. A few tickets are still available, so don't delay: Register for Cleantech Investment Forum.

Here are this week's Green Skeptic links:

The news is not great out of Japan this morning as Reuters reports workers at the Fukushima nuclear reactor were exposed to 10,000 times more radiation than previously thought: Fukushima. 

While in the US, concern about older nuclear facilities is leading to increased scrutiny as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has pledged to move New York's Indian Point to the top of its list of 27 nuclear plants being reviewed for risk from earthquakes: Indian Point and the New York Times reported that Nuclear Power Loses Support in New Poll

Ideas on Energy asks "Why are the world's most energy rich countries in the Middle East investing so heavily in renewable energy?" 

Meanwhile, in California, a landmark climate bill is being stalled by...a bunch of environmentalists?  China Dialogue editor Linden Ellis has the story: Greens Getting in the Way.

Shawn Lesser of Sustainable World Capital and Terry Cooke, a 2010 Public Policy Scholar on U.S.-China Clean Energy at the Woodrow Wilson Center, list the  "Top Ten U.S. and China Collaborations in Cleantech."

Katie Fehrenbacher at Earth2Tech reports that power gear company Schneider Electric has made one of the larger acquisitions in the industrial and commercial energy management sector, buying energy procurement and management company Summit Energy for $268 million.

Elizabeth Kolbert, writing in National Geographic, says the carbon dioxide we pump into the air is seeping into the oceans and slowly acidifying them. Kolbert asks, "One hundred years from now, will oysters, mussels, and coral reefs survive?"The Acid Sea

While Nature Conservancy president and CEO Mark Tercek suggests that Keeping More Fish in the Ocean is Good for People & Nature.

Have a great weekend everybody.

Green Skeptic Friday LinkFest - 03/04/11

Hugo Peabody (aka Bobby Rydell)

Some important client work and my son's appearance as Hugo Peabody in his high school's production of "Bye Bye Birdie" kept me in Philadelphia this week (ya gotta have priorities), so you didn't see me at TED or ARPA-E or the MIT Energy Conference. Here are some links to stuff I've been tracking this week:

First up, this blog made bschool.com's list of 50 Best Blogs for Green Business Students. 

Next, few DOE and ARPA-E related items:

Elizabeth McGowan at SolveClimate asks Can Obama's Bold Stroke on Cleantech Innovation Survive Budget Cuts?

Katie Fehrenbacher at GigaOm's Earth2Tech lists 10 Companies to Watch For Out of ARPA-E

CNET's Martin LaMonica suggests ARPA-E a litmus test for energy R&D agenda and then asks Then what?

The best quote I've read from TED 2011: "I"m just going to show you a kidney we printed earlier." (Yes, a human kidney. Printed.) Explore this TED recap from The Guardian: TED 2011 roundup: bionic body parts, self-driving cars and Jamie Oliver

Now on to China:

Energy China Forum suggests China, U.S. should form strategic alliance in clean energy development. 

and Ann Goodman, co-founder and executive director of the Women's Network for a Sustainable Future, writes about How business women are helping push a green agenda in China.  

Closer to home:

The US Fish & Wildlife Service announced the Eastern Cougar Is Declared Extinct, With an Asterisk

A new study tries to explain why Conservatives are much more likely to deny "global warming" than "climate change". 

The Wall Street Journal announced its second annual ranking of The Top 10 Clean-Tech Companies.

And, finally, GoodCompany Ventures announced it is now accepting applications for 2011 Class of Good Companies: Be a GoodCompany.


Have a great weekend, everybody!


(Disclosure: I am on the advisory board of GoodCompany Ventures, a social enterprise accelerator in Philadelphia.)

Canadians More Likely than Americans to Believe in Climate Change?

More Canadians than Americans believe climate change is real, according to two surveys of public opinion on climate change commissioned by the Public Policy Forum and Sustainable Prosperity.

Their findings indicate that belief in climate change among Canadians outpaces that among residents of the United States.

In Canada, 80 per cent believe in the science behind climate change, according to the survey results, compared with 58 per cent in the United States.

Taking it a step further, 65 percent of Canadians believe the government has a role to play in addressing climate change; whereas only 43 per cent of Americans feel that way.

The poll also shows 73 percent of Canadians surveyed are willing to pay to address climate change. Canadians demonstrate a higher degree of support for both cap and trade policies and carbon taxes than the American public. Only 55 percent of Americans in the survey support such measures.

In fact, a majority of Canadians respondents are willing to pay up to $50 a month in extra energy costs to address the issue.

The United States survey was conducted by the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion in Allentown, Pennsylvania and funded by both Muhlenberg College and the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan.

The Canadian survey was conducted by Leger Marketing in Montréal Québec and was funded by the Public Policy Forum and Sustainable Prosperity, with additional financial support from Internat Energy Solutions Canada.

For more on the survey: Sustainable Prosperity

Related articles

• Canadians more likely than Americans to believe in global warming: Survey (canada.com)
• Climate change an issue in Canada: Poll (cbc.ca)