Natural disasters awake feelings of confusion and uselessness as we look for answers that sometimes will never come. As a person who knows that human activity under our current mode of energy utilization has caused - and will continue to cause - changes in our climate, I recognize that not every major storm event results from climate change. I chose the article below among others on the topic because it uses the right scientific language - finding no confirmed link, and because one of the comments on the article notes that the analysis of the article focuses on the ferocity while those who look at climate over weather would also focus on frequency.
Evidence to Date Does Not Show Clear Link Between Tornadoes and Climate Change
"The short answer is that scientists don’t see a clear link between climate change and the number or intensity of tornadoes over the past several decades. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report on extreme events expressed 'low confidence,' mainly due to inadequacies in monitoring systems."
Amidst the popular punditry on the changing position of the modern Republican party (which those who know me know I do not equate with the GOP of Roosevelt) with regard to immigration, a more subtle and subversive wave of environmental conservatives seeks to look at energy issues with economic and public health common sense. For those who believe in centrist policies based on maximizing public good for the largest section of the population, this provides hope that some common sense will come to the discussion of our relationship with non-renewable, damaging sources of energy.
The (slow, tentative) greening of the GOP
"It's true: The same party that had just spent the previous year eviscerating Obama on the campaign trail for his green-energy agenda and the bankruptcy of Solyndra was now signaling that it was ready to go quietly, carefully greener. That message will be amplified this summer, when a squadron of House Republicans calling itself the House Energy Action Team -- yes, HEAT -- will hit town halls and TVs with a new set of energy talking points that, while still embracing oil and gas drilling, also say good things about energy efficiency and renewables."
This week showed signs of both the frustration and the hopefulness of this potentially bipartisan move forward. First the frustration: modern Republicans politicize the nomination of an administrator with large bipartisan support on the basis that she agree to transparency in an agency that the same Republican party treated with the opposite of transparency a decade ago. I do not admonish the call for transparency...I do admonish the holding up of a nomination over it. That hypocrisy lessens the case.
Observers optimistic McCarthy nomination will advance on floor
"McCarthy, who served under Republican governors as a state official in Massachusetts and Connecticut, has been praised by industry officials for being fair and open in policy discussions and has been widely backed by the left. That broad support, Willcox said, should help her advance.
And former EPA Administrator William Reilly said in an interview that he didn't anticipate more Republican boycotting, especially based on Vitter's comments.
'You don't really hold up a presidential nominee, especially at a Cabinet-level position, unless there is an issue of basic confidence or character,' said Reilly, who served under President George H.W. Bush from 1989 through 1992. 'In this case, there has been no implication that McCarthy lacks confidence, and there's been nothing said about her character. So it comes down to policy ... and I don't think we've had that debate.'"
On the hopeful side, a bipartisan bill that seeks to further reform energy policy in this country - the little that exists - has great promise to deliver improvements to quality of life. This cautious optimism comes amid an atmosphere where the rules of legislative "sausage making" allow anyone with an agenda to threaten governance by common sense.
Energy reform threatened by two "poison pills"
"A sweeping energy-efficiency bill soon to be on the U.S. Senate floor would help boost energy codes, finance retrofits, and support training programs for building tradespeople and professionals. But rumors of “poison pill” amendments are souring the process for green building advocates and could jeopardize the progress of the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (S. 761, cosponsored by Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio)."
Closer to home, for me, legislators in Illinois consider how to allow fracking in the state. Some common sense has accompanied the regulatory effort, even though many like me see the expansion of fracking into Illinois as a confirmation that we will never escape an economy based on fossil fuels and therefore seal our fate with the consequences. Amid the extreme calls for banning and permitting with little regulation, the idea of a moratorium to produce a picture of the impact of fracking in Illinois has greatest merit. It does not have to be a year or two; even a six month moratorium on issuing permits would allow early stage exploration by energy companies to determine market potential, and would give environmental organizations - many of whom support fracking with practical oversight - the chance to identify the potential impact on the quality of life of all the citizens of Illinois.
Illinois House committee oks fracking regulatory bill
"Jen Walling, executive director of the Illinois Environmental Council, representing a number of environmental groups, said Bradley's bill was necessary to regulate fracking before the drilling process became widely used in Illinois.
'This new, controversial technology is already permitted and may already be in use,' she said. 'We believe that operators are seeking permits for fracking in Illinois today and that it is essential for the Legislature to pass tough restrictions before the end of session to protect our communities.'"
Happy Friday!
No comments:
Post a Comment