Brookline launches climate week

A cold Sunday afternoon at a Brookline, MA school brought together community members to listen to a panel discuss their efforts to work on the issue of addressing climate change. I shot some footage that is now on Youtube and is available for viewing (albeit, in nine parts).

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX

The event was brought together by Climate Change Action Brookline, a group of volunteer activists. Climate Week is co-sponsored by Climate Change Action Brookline, the Selectmen's Climate Action Committee, the Brookline School Committee, Brookline Department of Public Health and Brookline Adult and Community Education.

The full calendar of events is available online.

Commerce Secretary denies MA governor request for fishing increase

In a letter to Governor Patrick Friday Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke rejected the Governor's request for emergency action to increase catch limits for Massachusetts fishermen.

In the letter, Secretary Locke states that after having the National Marine Fisheries Service review a November request to allow increases in fishing for the upcoming season due to economic downturn, there was no "scientific data that would justify increasing the catch limits."

Patrick wrote the Secretary in November also requesting $21 million in economic relief citing a report from the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute. The Institute is a partnership between the University of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Intercampus Graduate School of Marine Sciences and Technology, and the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. According to the letter by Locke, however, the data provided are "insufficient to warrant either a fishery disaster or a commercial fishery failure...".

Conservation Law Foundation Senior Counsel Peter Shelley sided with the Secretary. “With his decision to reject Governor Patrick’s request to increase catch limits, Secretary Locke has rightly rejected the notion that the new fisheries management plan is contributing to an economic crisis in the Massachusetts fishery,” Shelley said in a statement. “Instead of reacting to the self-interested objections of a few powerful fish processors and big commercial operations that seek to undermine the plan he approved, the Governor should direct the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries to conduct an open assessment of the performance of the new system using all available economic, scientific and anecdotal data so that any shortcomings may be quickly identified, documented and fixed. Such leadership would bridge the perceived divide between environmental and fishing interests to achieve a common goal of a sustainable and thriving fishing industry, built on healthy fish populations, diverse and successful fishing operations, and high quality ports.”

Down with Prop 23

It is unbelievable to me that the people of California would buy into the rhetoric of the oil industry. With several million dollars coming out of Valero, Tesoro, and Occidental combined, Proposition 23, which is on the November ballot in California, would repeal and completely undue the progress made in promoting renewable energy and for that matter in working to address the issue of combating global warming pollutants.

Yet again an out state special interest (I still can't believe Prop. 8 passed, what is going in in my home state?) is spinning the people of California's fears of joblessness (granted over 12 percent unemployment is pretty outrageous) but let's remember that the crash of the housing market and overpriced oil and energy expenses (caused not by the law combating pollution but by greedy energy producers upset that California is actually forward thinking) is the reason for California's outrageous state of affairs.

One thing I would like to suggest is folks go to the Facebook page of the proponents of Prop 23 and start flagging it as a scam. Prop 23 is a scam of the worst caliber; it sells itself as a we need to protect jobs, yet those jobs and that revenue are for oil and industries that continue to pollute the planet and the health of Californians and the people of the rest of the world.

Don't buy it California!

The Influence of Climate Change Communications on Public Opinion and Awareness

Polling within the US and internationally shows a large gap in what is publically known about climate science and policy. A World Public Opinion Poll taken between April and July 2009 reflected this global divide in opinion on taking action on climate change. At that time 52 percent of Americans believed that the government should place a higher emphasis on climate change, eight percentage points below the international average.

A CNN poll released October 27, 2009 increased that percentage to 60 percent of Americans in support of passage of climate change legislation in the form of a “cap and trade” bill, which is the dominant focus of legislation passed in the US House of Representatives, is currently under debate in the US Senate and is the adopted method of reducing greenhouse gas pollutants under the Kyoto Protocol.

A third poll taken by the Pew Center for The People & The Press in October 2009 reflected that while 73 percent of their respondents believe climate change is a serious or somewhat serious problem, only 24 percent of the poll’s respondents, representing nearly one-quarter of Americans, even know that cap and trade is an environmental policy.

These polls point out the need for better communication of how climate change is linked to the environment and economic, health and other issues. Also needed to be addressed is the public’s awareness of the issue as promoted through the media and through the public’s own behavior. Governments must, therefore, address how the topic is communicated and promote transparency and accountability in its policy-making.

Media Skill-Development, Behavior Change and Public Awareness of Climate Change

The public, especially within the United States, but also in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, remains unclear of the science and policy surrounding climate change. As the Pew poll reflects, within the United States nearly one-quarter of the public does not understand or even know what the main mechanism will be for reducing greenhouse gas pollution. The reasons for this confusion over climate change and the lack of knowledge about the topic stems from a variety of sources.

First, the media’s role in disseminating information about climate change has been obstructed by its own understanding of the issue and as a result of manipulation by special interests. The media, in fact, has misrepresented the economic debate over cap and trade, allowing opponents of action on climate change to promote a “false debate over climate science in the realm of climate economics.”[1] The media, essentially, has been used as a tool of promoting confusion and denial over the issue. Through supposedly objective institutions such as think tanks and trade associations or through academics funded by industry, the manipulation of information and science has been effective in promoting propaganda meant to cause doubt over climate science and the need for action. [2] The media has been effectively spun into believing these institutions’ and individuals’ perspectives are valid and necessary in order to promote a sense of “balance” when covering a story. Yet often these perspectives are intended to promote doubt on the subject of climate change, rather than to provide valid information. Journalists assessing this issue acknowledge the profession must start reporting the truth about the facts of climate policy - not just the facts themselves - if society is to avoid a climatic “cataclysm.”[3] These scholars promote the continuing education and specialization of media producers in order to address the inability of journalists to communicate climate change in a comprehensive and accurate way.

Another important component of public awareness of the topic of climate change is how this awareness is related to behavior and behavioral change. When thousands and even millions of people make choices that add unnecessarily to the global warming problem, the effects can be considerable.[4] Much communication of climate change policy and products has left the public turned off. Resulting in part from the manipulation of the media, the public is even turned off by terms like global warming and climate change. A new approach is therefore needed if mainstream consumers are to adopt lower-carbon lifestyles. [5]

Major Economies Forum and the Need for Communication, Transparency & Accountability

Leaders from around the world met October 18-19, 2009 in London at the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate to find common ground and to improve transparency and accountability. Among the goals set during the MEF, the group of leaders agreed that it would be useful to establish an organized process for how to take this work forward and to monitor its future progress.[6] An important mechanism of promoting transparency and accountability that was recommended was the use of national communication reports, which highlight a variety of campaigns that individual governments operate to promote climate change awareness to highlight what the governments are doing to address climate change. It was also noted that the frequency, timeliness, and content of these reports could be improved.

The fifth series of national communications under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are due to be released in January 2010. New methods of disseminating the results of these communication reports would not only help in the context of promoting transparency and accountability for government action on climate change, but would also help promote public awareness of how climate change is linked to economic, health, transportation, energy and other issues.

---

[1] Pooley, Eric. How Much Would You Pay to Save the Planet? The American Press and the Economics of Climate Change. Discussion paper published in 2008 by the Joan Shorenstein Center for Press, Politics and Public Policy at the Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government. Found at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/discussion_papers/d49_pooley.pdf on 10/28/2009.

[2] Hogan, James and Richard Littlemore. Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. D&M Publishing, 2009. Pgs. 8-12.

[3] Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media. Found at: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/03/comments-on-pooley-analysis/

[4] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Found at: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2910.php on 10/28/09.

[5] Platt, Reg and Simon Retallack. Consumer Power: How the public thinks lower-carbon behavior could be made mainstream. Published Sept. 17, 2009 by the Institute for Public Policy Research. Found at: http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=698

[6] Co-Chair’s Summary. Fifth Meeting of the Leaders’ Representatives of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate http://centralcontent.fco.gov.uk/central-content/campaigns/act-on-copenhagen/resources/en/pdf/mef-london-final-communique

Solar RD&D Bill Passes Through House

A bill promoting research, development and demonstration of solar technology passed the House last week with overwhelming support. The House bill, called the Solar Technology Roadmap Act and labeled HR 3585, creates an updatable strategic roadmap to advance solar energy technologies, according to a press release of the House Committee on Science and Technology.

The bill works to establish a framework for the Department of Energy to invest in solar technology, and would authorize $350 million for DOE to enact this RD&D beginning in 2011.

The bill has been sent to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for review.

API Campaign Attacks Climate Policy

Partially based on a leaked memorandum acquired by Greenpeace, the New York Times published a story today on how the American Petroleum Institute is bussing oil company employees to rallies to gain political support against passage of climate legislation. The memo, written by API president Jack Gerard, highlights 21 states where, over the next few weeks before Congress is back in session, rallies will be scheduled and employees of the industry will voice their concern over an industry that will be impacted by passage of a climate bill. The memo states that API is contracting with "a highly experienced events management company that has produced successful rallies for presidential campaigns, corporations and interest groups." The 21 venues, according to the memo, include:

Houston TX
Perry GA
Detroit MI
Roswell NM
Greensboro NC
Farmington NM
Ohio (venue being finalized)
Greeley CO
Nashville TN
Indiana (venue being finalized)
Bismarck ND
Tampa FL
Sioux Falls SD
Greenville SC
Anchorage AK
Joliet IL
Charleston WV
Fairfax VA
Philadelphia PA
Lincoln NE
Missouri - To Be Determined
Arkansas - TBD


In a response, Greenpeace USA executive director Phil Radford wrote to Gerard calling him out on how the memo goes against agreements made by many of API's members through the US Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of corporations and environmental organizations that have worked together to support climate policy.

This campaign presents an excellent opportunity to generate further dialogue on the benefits that passing climate legislation represents. Not only has there been ample research showing job growth within the manufacturing sector, but these are jobs that work to develop a sustainable economy based on clean energy. Rather than continued dependence on oil, and the health and environmental implications that this dependence reeps, efficiency and clean energy can transform the economy towards a sustainable model. Granted, these are not the only changes that need to be made in our economy, but they are a crucial step towards minimizing the impacts of climate change.

The API memo also points out that it is not alone in its dissent. Other organizations, such as the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, the trucking industry, the agricultural sector, consumer groups, small businesses, and many others pledged to have their membership join in the events in states where they have a strong presence, the memo states. API is, of course, thinking of its bottom line, which is to continue to sell as much petroleum as it can. These other industries are following along the same mode of thought.

Rather than trying to counter the arguments made by these groups, the environmental community should continue concentrating on the benefits that outweigh the costs of action on climate change. Hopefully, the environmental community will take this opportunity to promote dialogue in these same locations, showing that support for a green, clean economy is real and will not be swayed by misinformation and scare tactics.

Climate, Growth and Floods in Mumbai

Green Inc. wrote today on some of the impacts of climate change in India. The blog quotes Bittu Sahgal, an environmentalist and the editor of Sanctuary Magazine. “As a coastal city [Mumbai] should have been in top gear already, to adapt to climate impacts. Instead we see ignorant planners filling wetlands, planning construction on low-lying salt pan lands and otherwise adding to Mumbai’s heat sink effect by removing over 100,000 old trees."

These visible climate impacts speak to an obvious need for action on climate change. With the negotiations in Copenhagen now four months away, the international community, one might think, would be full steam ahead. Yet, as an article today in Climate Wire reports, "deadlock has plagued the United Nations for months as countries try to finalize a climate agreement that keeps global temperatures from rising above 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels."

To make matters worse, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change executive director Yvo de Boer is even quoted as saying that "If we continue at this rate, we're not going to make it."

The article also points out that the world is waiting for someone to take the lead. Hopefully, when the Senate comes back into session Sept. 8 the leaders of this country will show that it has the political will to take responsibility for its actions.