While the celebration of Earth Day has spread, much has also been lost, at least in the U.S.  The original Earth Day was a day of involvement.  It was a day of service, a day to pick up, clean up, plant and otherwise care for the Earth.  It was a day to work with other members of your community to reduce the damage that we have inflicted on the planet, and erase our footprints.  Today we more likely watch a dignitary “plant” a tree in front of City Hall, or go to a park to attend a concert and tour the booths of commercial vendors .  The concept of actual physical work and community involvement in environmentally-oriented projects has been replaced by mere passive attendance.  The irony is that rather than reducing our footprint on the Earth, we now increase it by our Earth Day “celebrations”.

On his return trip to the nations' capital from the 1969 oil well blowout off the coast of Santa Barbara, California Senator Gaylord Nelson conceived  the initial Earth Day.  The Santa Barbara oil spill and the Cuyahoga River (Cleveland, Ohio) fires had resulted in significant press coverage and heightened environmental awareness. Senator Nelson, a dedicated conservationist, had been deeply disturbed by the destruction caused by the mammoth Santa Barbara oil spill, and was also intrigued by the new college campus "teach-in" movement. Sensing the opportunity for increased citizen environmental involvement he directed some of his college age staff members to develop an national environmental teach-in, and stipulated that it be organized and managed at the community level, with only coordination and support at the national level.  Conceived in September 1969, the first Earth Day was held the following April.

On the eve of Earth Day 2010 the drill rig Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank causing the largest oil spill in history.  While the well was eventually capped, it is reported⁽¹⁾ that oil is still seeping in the vicinity of the well.  Oil is reported to still be present in the Gulf wetlands, and observed abnormalities in Gulf fish, invertebrates and marine mammals are being reported.  Meanwhile oil production from deep water wells in the Gulf have returned to pre-blowout levels, and new permits for deep water drilling are being issued at a record rate.  Even more disturbing, permits have been recently issued for drilling in the pristine Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea, sites were weather conditions would prevent a spill response similar to that mounted in the Gulf.   In sharp contrast to 1970 there is little, if any, media coverage of Gulf recovery, or future Arctic drilling, other than heightened calls for increased offshore drilling, which is claimed will lower the price of gasoline.

Likewise, both public and governmental interest in climate change appears to be waning, in spite of the extreme weather that has been, and is being,  experienced around the globe.  Media Matters recently reported⁽²⁾ that U.S. broadcast TV coverage of climate change has “plummeted” in the last two years with nightly news coverage dropping 72% between 2009 and 2011, with coverage dropping 90% on the Sunday shows.  During the two-year study period the majority of climate change information came from either politicians (50%) or media personalities (45%), and none from scientists.  At least in U.S. politics climate change has rapidly become a term that is associated with a fringe, liberal viewpoint, and is to be avoided at all costs.  Even being labeled as a past believer in climate change can be detrimental to a political career.   It appears to widely believed that climate change is a false belief that will destroy our economy, and increase unemployment.

Population, a primary cause of climate change, was a major focus of the 1970 Earth Day as demonstrated by this popular image from the cover of the journal, Environmental Action.  At the time, the global population was 3.7 billion, which has increased 90% to over 7 billion today.  However, the rate of population growth has slowed from 2.07% in 1970 to 1.07% today⁽³⁾.  It is important to bear in mind that this is a drop in growth rate, not a drop in absolute numbers.  Since the world population now is 90% greater than in 1970 the actual population is increasing by about the same number of people (approximately 75 million) today as it was in 1970 (about half the rate, but about twice the population).  Demographers do not agree on a reason for the past decline in growth rate, nor the future growth rate,  but if it remains at its current level the world population should reach  8 billion in 2023, 9 billion by 2041 and then 10 billion at some point after 2081.  However a slight increase in the growth rate would greatly increase the population by the end of the century, while a slight decrease in growth rate could actually result in a lower world population by 2100.

As long as we are dependent upon fossil fuels, population and consumption will be the primary drivers of climate change.  Since both population and consumption have increased since 1970,  and consumption will continue to do so as the economic condition of the citizens of developing nations improves, the ultimate result will be an increased rate of climate change.     The conventional surrogate for greenhouse gases (CO2) has continued to increase from value of 325ppm in 1970 to the current level of approximately 395ppm as measured at the isolated Mauna Loa Observatory.  More significantly, while the rate of population growth has decreased since 1970, the rate of CO2 increase has more than doubled since 1970, from 0.8 to over 2.0 today – a indication of increasing consumption. 

   A simple extrapolation of the Mauna Loa measurements indicates that CO2 levels will reach 550 ppm, by 2050, a value toward the low end of most predictions.

The challenge we face this Earth Day is nothing less than the reversal of the red, "extrapolated" line in the graph above.  While scientists disagree about the specific point at which climate change becomes irreversible, virtually  all agree that it is lower than 450 ppm, a level that will be reached in about 20 years at the present rate of increase.  

As citizens of the world, we must ask if complacency is warranted this Earth Day.  Have we done all that we can to fulfill the promise of the original, 1970 Earth Day?  Have our activities today “given back” to the planet?  It is apparent that we cannot rely on our leaders to protect the planet, but rather we must act to make it uncomfortable for them not to do so.  It has been reported that after the 1970 Earth Day President Nixon told his staff that “I don’t understand what those people want, but do whatever it takes to make them happy”.  Consequently the Environmental Protection Agency was established, and a broad array of legislation to protect the air, water, land and endangered species was rapidly signed into law. When 20 million Americans in communities all over the country united for the benefit of our planet the government had little choice but to listen and respond.  While such an outpouring of effort, at the grassroots level, seems unlikely today, we can, and must, make our voices heard.  Write your elected representatives, let them know that you care about our planet, and are concerned about climate change.  Watch how they vote, and thank them when they vote to protect the planet.  Not just on April 22, but make the 22nd of every month your own personal “Climate Day”!

Learn! Teach! Act!

___________________

1.)  http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/03/20123313318459762.html

2.)  http://mediamatters.org/research/201204160010

3.)  http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldpoptotal.php

4..)  Atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory from: Dr. Pieter Tans, NOAA/ESRL (www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) and Dr. Ralph Keeling, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/)

5.)  CO2 extrapolation graph from:  http://greenphysicist2.blogspot.com/2010/02/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels.html

In contrast to field studies, “meta-studies” analyze the results of a collection of previous studies.  In other words, they pull together and analyze data from a bunch of different studies, rather than undertake field or laboratory investigations.  Obviously the data included in meta-studies are often collected by different methods, in different locations and at different times, however when properly analyzed, these differences can strengthen the findings of meta-studies.  This meta-study, conducted by investigators at the University of York, England included data from over a 100 studies in Europe, North America, Chile and Malaysia and included both plant and animal species.

As would be expected, there was a great deal of variation in migration among species, with some moving little, or not at all, or even retreating over several decades.  But over all, the trend of migration toward cooler climates was clear.  Additionally, the rate of migration was correlated with the amount of climate change in species range.  According to Dr. Thomas “the more warming there’s been in an area, the more you would expect a species to move, and the more they have moved”.

Accelerating rates of upward migration have recently been described elsewhere, for instance a recent investigation⁽²⁾ revisited upward migration of American pikas in the Great Basin ecoregion of the North American west.  Records from the period 1898 to 2008 showed a near 5-fold increase of extinction of local populations and an 11-fold increase in the rate of upward migration during the past 10 years.  Pika populations are now moving upwards at an average rate of 145 meters (475.7 feet) per decade in response to a warming climate.

Dependence upon upward migration is little more than a short-cut to extinction, as the physical amount of potential habitat declines with increasing elevation until it becomes zero – at the top of the mountain.  As populations and communities migrate upward, they become increasingly physically isolated, and the gene pools of individual species tend to become increasingly unique.  The term “disjunct” is frequently applied to such isolated communities, and with the passage of time they become “relics” of ecosystems found under previous regional climates.  Often called “Islands in the Sky” by the popular press, mountain-top relic communities are a biological refuge, offering a window into the past.  As they have reached the top, many of the species comprising these ancient communities are now being “pushed off” the mountains, and into extinction, by a warming climate.

_____________________________

1.)  I-C. Chen, J. K. Hill, R. Ohlemuller, D. B. Roy, C. D. Thomas. Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming. Science, 2011; 333 (6045): 1024 DOI: 10.1126/science.12064321.

2.)  Beever, E. A., Ray C., Wilkening, J. L., Brusssard, P. F. and Mote, P. W. (2011), Contemporary climate change alters the pace and drivers of extinction. Global Change Biology, 17: 2054–2070. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02389.x

There can no longer be any doubt about a changing climate.  Our climate is changing now and it is too late stop it, or perhaps even significantly slow it down.  Our only choice is to finally recognize the reality of climate change, and learn to live with a climate  that differs from the one in which we, and the ecosystems upon which we depend, evolved.

The evidence is all around us.  No matter where on this globe you live, your region, or one nearby, has been suffering from long-term weather that is either drier, wetter, colder, or warmer than normal.  The gentle 3-day rains of 50 years ago have been replaced by heavy downpours. June, 2011, was the 316^th consecutive month with a global temperature (land and sea) above the 20^th century average⁽¹⁾.   While weather is not climate, violent and extreme weather are indeed characteristics of climate change and are readily explained by basic laws of physics to be the direct consequence of a warming planet.

The seasons are changing, The flowing times of many plants are changing, animal migrations and distributions are changing, and species are becoming extinct at an alarming rate.

Around the globe, ice is rapidly melting.  The Artic ice is melting so rapidly that commercial shipping is now using the Northwest Passage Polar region to move cargo between Asia and Europe during newly ice-free summer periods.  The spectacular Glacier National Park, in northern Montana, U.S., contained 150 glaciers in 1850.  There are now only 25 glaciers left in the park, and these are predicted to melt within the next 10 – 20 years⁽²⁾ leaving a national park dedicated to glaciers with none.

These, and many more, signs of climate change are direct observations.  They are not predictions, calculations, or speculation; they are observed facts with direct and immediate impact upon individuals and communities, and long-term economic and social consequences for the world’s societies.

By in large our leaders and governments have been increasingly ignoring climate change, or even denying it.  This is partially due to concerns about the global economies, but also due to political philosophies.  Unfortunately, the number of “climate deniers” in the United States national and state governments was greatly increased by the latest elections.  Many of these leaders have used their beliefs that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by those wishing to increase taxes and pass laws stifling economic growth and reduce individual rights to justify their policy positions.  The United States, and many other nations, did not act when we had the opportunity, nor did the nations of the world agree to a meaningful cooperative treaty during the IPCC conferences.  Now it is too late.

In apparent response to the growing social conservative movement in the U.S. the number of Americans who are either  “concerned” or “alarmed” by climate change has decreased from 51% in November of 2008 to 39% in May, 2011 according to the latest “Six Americas” update⁽³⁾.  Of even greater concern is the climate deniers are encouraging an anti-science sentiment that threatens science education and the future supply of scientists and engineers that will be essential for addressing the impacts of climate change.

What does the future hold?  It seems reasonable to assume that the global economic downturn will initially result in decreased energy consumption and the corresponding emission of greenhouse gases.  But, in the longer term there will most likely be an increased consumption of cheaper, dirtier fuels, such as wood and coal, primarily as a result of population growth in the developing nations and the reluctance of business to invest in cleaner energy sources as the economy improves.  Any meaningful legislation will be delayed, probably for decades, as social conservatives retain political power and influence public opinion.

A continuation of climate change is far less speculative than the economic and political future as many of the physical processes causing climate change have a built-in momentum and a changing climate results in self-reinforcing biological and physical “feedback” feed back processes⁽⁴⁾.

It is possible that global economic recession might cause a temporary slowing in the rate of climate change.  But in the mid- to long-term the Earth’s climate will continue to change at an increasing rate.  How we adapt to a new, and constantly changing climate is up to us.

________________________________

1.  National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center.  State of the Climate, Global Analysis, June 2001.  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/(viewed August 5, 2001)

2.  Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.  Retreat of glaciers in Glacier National Park.  http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm  (viewed August 6, 2011)

3.  Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Smith, N. (2011) Global Warming’s Six Americas, May 2011.  Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/SixAmericasMay2011.pdf

4.  AreWeToast.com, System Feedback and Tipping Points. http://arewetoast.com/system-feedback-and-tipping-points.html

“It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government in order to save the environment.”

The above quote by famed photographer Ansel Adams has been attributed to a statement that he made in conjunction with the first Earth Day, in 1970.  In any event it is an apt sentiment as we mark the 4oth Earth Day as our environment is once again imperiled by our government.

Earth Day 2009 was entirely different from today.  In spite of the economic situation, people remained concerned about the environment.  Climate change was a major concern, with high hopes for a positive outcome from the 2009 United Nations Convention on Climate Change (COP 15).  But in December the international Copenhagen conference turned into a shambles.  The COP 16 Convention, held in Cancun, Mexico in 2010 was practically invisible, making no substantial progress toward renewal of the Kyoto Protocol set to expire in 2012.  Little noticed, but highly significant, COP 16 marked a shift by the 194 nations represented from prevention of climate change to mitigation and adaption to climate change.

In the United States, the 2010 elections resulted in a dramatic shift toward the right, with a Republican take over of the House of Representatives and gains in the Senate.  On April 8th the government finally reached a budget agreement for Fiscal 2011 (which began October 1, 2010), which in addition to providing funds for this year also provides indications of future government policies.  The budget drastically cut programs for wilderness protection, conservation activities associated with agriculture, and climate change research.  The budget for the Environmental Protection Agency was cut 19%, but on the basis of a 50 – 50 vote in the Senate retained the ability to regulate air polluting emissions.  Clean energy research was reduced from 2010 by $1.2 billion.  Significantly a “rider” attached by the House overrode the science required by law and removed Timber Wolves from the endangered species list in 5 western states. 

The U.S. 2011 budget reductions do not bode well for the future.  When you couple the actions of Congress with the inaction of the President, whose election campaign included numerous promises of action on climate change and who now cannot bring himself to even say the words “climate change”, or “global warming”, it is clear that there is little hope for  effective government action on climate change, at least in the United States, for the foreseeable future.

Thus we must return to the words of Ansel Adams and renew the fight with our own governments to protect the environment.  This is not a one day a year, Earth Day task but continuing, year-round responsibility.  At the very least, make the 22nd of every month your Personal Earth Day, and on that day let your leaders know of your concerns regarding climate change and the environment!

 Learn! Teach! Act!

“Phenology” is the science that studies the influence of climate upon of plant and animal phenomena as the budding and flowering of plants, and the migration of animals.   Many of us are already phenological scientists; bird watchers  routinely record migration and nesting data, while many gardeners record flowering, harvesting and other data.    The USA National Phenology Network (USA-NPN) depends upon volunteers to observe and share their data, and to organize and analyze previously collected data.  To be an observer, you can watch the same tree in your front yard, and each year report when the leaves appear, or fall.  Such data collected by many can tells us a great deal about climate change, and help us prepare for the future.

You are obviously using a computer to read this; if it is yours you can donate some computer time to a climate change project (if it is not your computer you don’t want to do this!).  Climateprediction.net is a a project to produce predictions of the Earth’s climate up to the year 2100, and to test the accuracy of climate models.  Based at Oxford University, the project utilizes “distributed computing”, which depends upon the donation of time on individual, personal computers.  The project utilizes a free, open-source software program, “BOINC” developed at the University of California-Berkeley for volunteer and distributed grid computing.  BOINC is currently running on nearly a half-million computers belonging to over 300,000 volunteers and organizations. 

To participate in an distributed computing project you load BOINC on your computer, and then select a project to receive your donated computer time, of which Climateprediction.net is just one.  Other projects include topics such as the control of Malaria, mathematics, protein analysis, and genetics.   Climateprediction.net recently published a ground-breaking study based on computation conducted on approximately about 60,000 donated computers.  The entire process of setting up a computer for this use takes less than 15 minutes.  The program then runs in the background, using only unused computer cycles, and automatically shutting down when it might slow, or otherwise interfere with your usage.  As most computer tasks typically use only a small percentage of computer capacity, the Climateprediction.net is using only wasted resources and is invisible to the user. 

These are but two of many volunteer opportunities that require very little time and effort, but where the collective contribution of many volunteers is of great value.  And in each case, you can watch the progress and results of the project in which you are participating.  Visit http://usanpn.org for more information about phenology,  http://climateprediction.net for information on climate modeling projects, and http://boinc.berkeley.edu for open source grid computing software and to volunteer for various projects. 

“Cause” vs. “contribute” are really two different, but related, questions.  By way of illustration we can start with a couple of very fundamental facts.  Warm water evaporates more quickly that cold water, and warm air holds more moisture than cooler air.  Thousands of global temperature measurements tell us that the oceans and the atmosphere are warming, therefore moisture is being added to the atmosphere more rapidly and the air has the capacity to hold more moisture.  Therefore it stands to reason global warming may contribute to the intensity of individual rainfall events and may even cause them.  

However, the ability to quantify any effect of climate change upon rainfall, and to scientifically prove a cause and effect relationship is a more difficult task.   Two recent papers in the on-line version of the esteemed British journal, Nature, have addressed this topic.  The first, “Human contribution to more intense precipitation extremes”⁽¹⁾ compared  50 years of precipitation records (1951 – 1999) over much of the northern hemisphere with the results of several computer models used to predict 20th century precipitation.  It was only when the effects of greenhouse gases was added to the models that agreement with the actual measured precipitation was obtained.  The study showed an increase of 7% in the probability of extreme precipitation on any given day during the later half of the 20th century in the Northern Hemisphere, a far greater percentage than would be expected from the natural variability of weather.  A second finding was that existing climate models tend to be conservative in predicting precipitation, typically underestimating the amount that was actually measured.

With a more narrow geographic scope, another paper “Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000” ⁽²⁾ examined the data from a single, regional event, the wettest autumn since records began in 1766, and found that the chances of such  heavy floods as the region experienced in the fall of 2000 were roughly doubled by the increased level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Nine out of ten of their computer model simulations showed that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the probably of such flooding as experienced in 2000 by over 20%, while two-thirds of the simulations showed an increased probability of over 90%.

The fact that both of these groundbreaking studies took nearly 10 years to complete, even when an base of actual data existed, shows the tremendous amount of computer time that the highly complex climate models require.  While such models may not be perfect, they are rapidly becoming more accurate, and as demonstrated here, capable of more highly refined results; and they are definately the best available tools for understanding climate change.   Note that in both cases, these studies are not saying that specific weather events were directly caused by climate change, but rather that the probabilities of their occurrence was increased by climate change. It is also noteworthy that the second study, dealing with the 2000 flood risk in England and Wales, was conducted by the ClimatePrediction.net project at Oxford University, using a computer grid composed of approximately 60,000 donations of unused computer cycles on individual personal computers around the world.

_________________________________________

1.) Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

2.) Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09762.html

As I attempt to examine the consequences of this election, I will often turn to information collected and presented by others.   The summary below, by Scott Keyes, was published on the Think Progress site (a liberal blog) based on a September survey of Republican candidates conducted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

“REPORT: Meet The 2010 GOP Freshman Class

Following last night’s election, over 100 freshmen Republicans will take their seats in the 112th Congress. These GOPers come from disparate backgrounds, but they are united by their adherence to the extreme wing of conservative ideology.

A new ThinkProgress investigation has found that the incoming GOP freshman class is rife with legislators who not only oppose climate change legislation, but deny that manmade global warming even exists. They are pushing not just to end birthright citizenship, but also demand that the United States reduce the number of legal immigrants.

Here is a snapshot of the GOP Class of 2010’s extremism:

ENVIRONMENT

- 50% deny the existence of manmade climate change
- 86% are opposed to any climate change legislation that increases government revenue

IMMIGRATION

- 39% have already declared their intention to end the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship
- 32% want to reduce legal immigration

TAXES/SPENDING

- 91% have sworn to never allow an income tax increase on any individual or business – regardless of deficits or war
- 79% have pledged to permanently repeal the estate tax
- 48% are pushing for a balanced budget amendment

This is where individual incoming GOP freshmen stand on each issue:

Key

GW: Global warming denier
CC: No climate change legislation

BC: End birthright citizenship
RI: Reduce legal immigration

TP: No tax increase pledge
ET: Repeal estate tax

BB: Balanced budget amendment

Martha Roby (AL-02) CC TP ET
Mo Brooks (AL-05) GW CC TP ET

Joe Miller* (AK-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB
Paul Gosar (AZ-01) CC BC RI TP

Ben Quayle (AZ-03) GW CC BC TP ET
David Schweikert (AZ-05) CC BC RI TPET BB

Ruth McClung* (AZ-07) GW CC ET BB
Jesse Kelly* (AZ-08) GW CC BC RI TP ETBB

Rick Crawford (AR-01) CC TP ET
Tim Griffin (AR-02) CC BC RI TP ET

Steve Womack (AR-03) CC BC RI TP
John Boozman (AR-SEN) GW CC BC RI TPET BB

David Harmer* (CA-11) GW CC TP ET
Jeff Denham (CA-19) GW CC TP

Andy Vidak (CA-20) GW TP ET
Scott Tipton (CO-03) CC TP ET

Cory Gardner (CO-04) GW CC TP BB
Steve Southerland (FL-02) CC BC RI TPET BB

Rich Nugent (FL-05) CC BC RI TP ET BB
Daniel Webster (FL-08) CC BC RI TP ET

Dennis Ross (FL-12) CC BC RI TP ET BB
Allen West (FL-22) GW BC RI ET

Sandy Adams (FL-24) CC BC RI TP ETBB
David Rivera (FL-25) CC TP ET

Marco Rubio (FL-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB
Rob Woodall (GA-07) BC RI

Austin Scott (GA-08) CC BC RI TP ET
Raul Labrador (ID-01) CC RI TP ET BB

Joe Walsh* (IL-08) GW CC TP BB
Robert Dold (IL-10) GW CC TP

Adam Kinzinger (IL-11) CC TP
Randy Hultgren (IL-14) GW CC TP ET BB

Bobby Schilling (IL-17) GW CC BC TPET BB
Mark Kirk (IL-SEN) CC

Marlin Stutzman (IN-03) CC TP ET BB
Todd Rokita (IN-04) GW CC TP ET

Larry Bucshon (IN-08) GW CC TP ET BB
Todd Young (IN-09) GW CC TP BB

Dan Coats (IN-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01) GW CC BC RI TPET

Kevin Yoder (KS-03) ET
Mike Pompeo (KS-04) CC TP ET

Jerry Moran (KS-SEN) GW CC BC RI TP
Rand Paul (KY-SEN) GW CC BC TP ET BB

Jeff Landry (LA-03) CC TP BB
Andy Harris (MD-01) CC BC RI TP ET BB

Dan Benishek (MI-01) CC BC RI TP ETBB
Bill Huizenga (MI-02) GW CC TP ET

Justin Amash (MI-03) CC TP ET BB
Tim Walberg (MI-07) GW CC BC RI TP ETBB

Chip Cravaack (MN-08) GW TP ET BB

Vicky Hartzler (MO-04) GW CC BC TPET
Billy Long (MO-07) CC ET

Roy Blunt (MO-SEN) GW CC BC RI TP ET
Alan Nunnelee (MS-01) CC BC RI TP ETBB

Steven Palazzo (MS-04) CC BC RI TP ETBB
Renee Ellmers (NC-02) TP ET BB

Rick Berg (ND-AL) CC TP ET
John Hoeven (ND-SEN) GW

Frank Guinta (NH-01) CC TP ET BB
Charlie Bass (NH-02) GW CC BC TP

Kelly Ayotte (NH-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB
Jon Runyan (NJ-03) CC ET BB

Joe Heck (NV-03) CC BC RI TP ET
Steve Pearce (NM-02) GW CC BC TP ET

Mike Grimm (NY-13) GW CC TP ET BB
Nan Hayworth (NY-19) GW CC TP ET BB

Chris Gibson (NY-20) CC TP
Richard Hanna (NY-24) ET

Anne Marie Buerkle* (NY-25) GW CCTP ET BB
Tom Reed (NY-29) CC TP ET

Steve Chabot (OH-01) GW CC TP ET BB
Bill Johnson (OH-06) CC TP ET

Steve Stivers (OH-15) GW CC TP ET
Jim Renacci (OH-16) CC TP ET BB

Bob Gibbs (OH-18) GW CC BC RI TP ETBB
Rob Portman (OH-SEN) TP

James Lankford (OK-05) GW CC BC TPET
Mike Kelly (PA-03) CC TP ET

Pat Meehan (PA-07) CC TP ET
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08) CC TP ET

Tom Marino (PA-10) CC BC RI TPET BB
Lou Barletta (PA-11) CC BC RI TPET

Pat Toomey (PA-SEN) GW TPET
Tim Scott (SC-01) CC TPET BB

Jeff Duncan (SC-03) BC RI TP
Trey Gowdy (SC-04) GW CC TP ET BB

Mick Mulvaney (SC-05) GW CC TP ETBB
Kristi Noem (SD-AL) GW CC TP ET

Chuck Fleischman (TN-03) BC RI TP ET
Scott DesJarlais (TN-04) CC BC RI TP ETBB

Diane Black (TN-06) GW CC BC RI TP ET
Stephen Fincher (TN-08) CC TP ET

Bill Flores (TX-17) CC BC RI TP ET BB
Francisco Canseco (TX-23) CC TP

Blake Farenthold (TX-27) GW BB
Mike Lee (UT-SEN) CC BC TP ET BB

Scott Rigell (VA-02) GW CC BC RI TP
Robert Hurt (VA-05) GW CC TP ET

Morgan Griffith (VA-09) GW CC TP ET
Keith Fimian* (VA-11) GW CC TP ET BB

John Koster* (WA-02) GW CC BC RI TPET BB
Jamie Herrera (WA-03) CC TP ET

Dick Muri* (WA-09) GW TP BB
Dino Rossi* (WA-SEN) GW TP ET BB

Sean Duffy (WI-07) CC TP ET
Reid Ribble (WI-08) CC TP ET

Ron Johnson (WI-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB
David McKinley (WV-01) GW CC BC RITP ET BB

*- These races are currently too close to call.”

(List edited to update two races in Washington State.)

NASA recently reported that the first seven months of this year were the warmest on record while the just released U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)  2009 State of the Climate Report  using data combined from a number of sources shows that 2009 was the warmest on record, the first decade of the 21st Century was the warmest on record, as in turn were the decades of the 1980’s and the 1990’s. 

While the recent extreme weather is entirely consistent with climate change, short-term weather is not climate.  However the 30 years of constantly increasing global temperature is a pretty strong statement about our changing climate.  It is increasingly apparent that climate change is not a topic for future speculation, but rather a current reality.  While no single weather event can be said to be caused by climate change, the variable and extreme weather that we are now observing is the type and pattern of weather long predicted by climate change science.  If fact, the oft-maligned 2007 IPCC reports described regional weather patterns that perfectly match the events mentioned above. 

It is too late to debate whether or not climate change is real, or think of it as something that may happen in the future.  Climate change is real, and it is happening now.  It is no longer a question of how we can prevent climate change, but rather a question of how can we best adapt and will we take the steps necessary to slow the rate of climate change for future generations.  A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America demonstrates that climate change will be irreversible for at least 1,000 years after a complete elimination of CO₂ emissions and that the effects of climate change will be greater as the CO₂ level increases.  Thus it is clear that the longer we fail to act, the more dire the consequences.  And the sad reality is that we are no closer to acting on climate change than we were 100 years ago.  The United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen was a total fiasco, ending without the widely anticipated binding agreements.  As the international Bonn meeting in preparation for the 2010 conference in Cancun ended in disarray, there is no reason to hope that the issues that could not be resolved in Copenhagen will be resolved in Cancun one year later.  And displaying a total lack of leadership the U.S. Senate has failed to even consider climate change. 

As we continue to dump greenhouse gases, and other pollutants, into the atmosphere climate change will continue to gain momentum.  Floods, drought, fire, blizzards, extreme hot and cold temperatures, and violent storms will increase.  Species extinctions, crop failures, water shortages, non-productive oceans,  and storm damage will add to human misery, and extract an increasing economic cost.

Welcome to the new normal. 

The commissions, hearings, and investigations will all fail to recognize, and in fact will shy away from, the basic and common causes of both the Gulf disaster and climate change:  human greed, human arrogance and human fallibility. 

Greed and arrogance often go hand in hand, and can be both positive and negative.  Greed is a primary motivator, greed drives us to better ourselves, while arrogance demands that we push forward.  On the other hand, most consider rampant greed exercised at the expense of others as a human fallibility.  

It must be remembered that in a capitalistic society the “business of business is business”, that is, it is the purpose of any business to make as much profit for its owners or stockholders as possible.  The greed of stockholders and owners typically demands a short-term approach to profit, since most invest for an immediate return and have little patience with the possibility of an unknown profit at some unknown point in the future.  To keep the stockholders happy, and enhance his personal profit, a manager must maximize the short-term fiscal return to the stockholders which is typically accomplished by cutting as many corners as possible and investing the absolute minimum  in long-term areas such as safety and maintenance.

As the investigations into the Gulf disaster proceed we are hearing frequent reports of attempts by the oil industry pressuring government to ease regulations and waive requirements.  BP CEO Tony Hayward readily admits that they did not have a backup in place in case of a failure, which is contrary to MMS Safety Alert #186 issued March 3, 2000.  Acoustical backup systems are required by most nations, but the industry has managed to convince U.S. regulators that they are not worth the expense.  It is estimated that the cost of an acoustical backup would have cost BP about $500,000, roughly one day’s rental fee for the Deepwater Horizon, which is now sitting at the bottom of the Gulf.

Greed is not at all restricted to BP, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that during the past five years a U.S. offshore drilling worker was 4 times as likely to be killed than workers in European waters, primarily due to less stringent U.S. regulations.  All businesses weigh costs vs. benefits, and in most cases there is constant tension between business and their regulators.  But when greed gets the upper hand, society (and the environment) inevitably lose.

It is greed and arrogance that leads business to “externalize costs” by dumping their waste products into waterways and the atmosphere polluting the environment and forcing the public to clean the waters so that they are safe to drink, and bear the health cost of breathing polluted air.  The externalization of the cost incurred with the disposal cost of greenhouse gases, is a foremost cause of climate change.

Greed and arrogance are also prevalent in all levels of government around the world.  No matter what form of government a county has, there is always an enormous amount of money (usually from business) available to influence government to the benefit of the donor.  Call it corruption, influence peddling, bribery or donation there is always some appeal to political greed in exchange for influence or “favors”.  Many of our leaders are honorable people (or at least feel that they are), and serving in the public interest.  Yet their base greed makes it hard to decline political donations, which their arrogance can always justify on the basis that “everyone else does it”, or that it “takes money to be re-elected”.  It is being currently being reported that Halliburton, one of the BP contractors on the gushing oil well in the Gulf of Mexico has suddenly stepped up “political” contributions last month, with emphasis on members of the various U.S. Congressional committees that are investigating the Gulf disaster.  It speaks to the greed of these congressmen that they have accepted such donations, and to their arrogance in believing that it is proper to do so.  While they claim that they are not swayed by cash donations, they are fallible and cannot help but be influenced by such donations.

Perhaps no better example of human arrogance is available than our relationship to the natural environment upon which we depend.  We have “subdued the wilderness”, “conquered the raging rivers”, and “tamed the savage beasts”.  None of these common expressions conveys a feeling of living in harmony with our environment, sustainability, or conservation.  Our greed demands that we exploit our environment for our short-term benefit, an our arrogance assures us that we have the right to do so, without regard for the generations that will follow us.

It was greed that drove BP to drill 18,000 feet below the surface of the earth to extract oil. It was greed for BP to drill this well without any backup plans, or any method to contain a well blow-out, which is not an uncommon occurrence.  And if it is found that BP cut any corners, it will be due to pure greed.  It is unmitigated arrogance for BP CEO Hayward to state “we will clean up every drop”, and for BP advertisements to make such statements as “we will make this right”, “we will get this done”, “if wildlife is affected, rescue stations have been set up to take care of them”.  Note the “if” in the last claim, entire ecosystems are being destroyed before our eyes,  and BP has the arrogance to say “if”!  This is actually what the arrogance of BP’s “if” looks like:

We are now reaching the limits our planet’s resources.  Virtually all surveys show that have reached the peak of oil supply and production, therefore we must drill deeper and deeper, or in more hazardous environments to recover the last of our dwindling oil reserves.  The amount of our arable lands are declining due increasing urbanization, population, increasing droughts, and salinization and erosion resulting from exploitive agricultural practices.  And most ominously,  we have either passed, or are very rapidly approaching the “tipping point” at which we will no longer have the ability to influence climate change.

There is indeed a strong relationship between climate change and the Gulf oil disaster.  As we continue to drill deeper and deeper, and in more hostile environments, there will be more paperwork generated, and perhaps some technological changes put in place as a result of the Gulf disaster.  But there is no question that in spite of the assurances from the experts and our politicians, we will have another oil disaster, another mine disaster, and another one after that.  For we are fallible human beings,  no matter what safeguards are put in place, sooner or later a human will make an error and once again oil will gush into our fragile environment.  But we will keep drilling driven by our greed and arrogance, until the last drop of oil is extracted from the earth. 

Ultimate we are all the guilty ones.  In the developed nations we will continue our rampant lifestyle, demanding bigger houses, cars and TV’s, while citizens of the developing nations will naturally aspire to reach our standard of living.  Our economies are increasingly based on consumption, which requires exploitation of our planet’s resources and the pollution of our waters, lands and air.  Our greed must be fed, our arrogance will assure us that we have the right to our greed, and that the hindering warnings of science must thus be wrong.  And because they are composed of fallible humans our governments will fail to make the hard, unpopular choices required.

In short, We Are Toast. 

Over the past 6 weeks the size of the surface oil slick has appeared to expand and contract, while the official U.S. Government estimates of the volume of gushing oil have increased from 1,000 barrels (42,000 U.S. gallons) to 5,000 bbl./day to the current estimates 12,000 to 19,000 bbl./day.  Some independent estimates are even higher.  No matter what the actual volume, it is obvious that a great deal of oil is gushing out of the well.  But if the slick on the surface is not drastically increasing  where is that oil going?   Where else could it be, but between the surface and the bottom of Gulf; and, in fact we are now know that this is the case as at least two vast undersea plumes of oil have been found, one heading in a westerly direction from failed well site, the other stretching in an easterly direction.  The dimensions of both plumes are great, and largely unexplored. 

Why the oil is remaining below the surface has not been proven at this time, but two possible reasons are readily apparent.  The most probable reason for the subsurface oil plumes is the large amounts of highly toxic “dispersants” that BP has applied both at the surface, and at the well head, 5,000 feet below the surface.  Dispersants do exactly what the name implies, they break up the oil into smaller droplets which then become dispersed throughout the water column rather than rising to the surface.  In other words,  the “solution to the oil pollution is dilution” with the added benefit in this case of keeping it “out of sight, out of mind”.  If the gushing oil had been rapidly contained, this might have been a successful approach for BP as it could have avoided massive amounts of oil on the beaches and nightly TV reports of oiled birds.  However, it has now made the worse environmental disaster to hit the United States even far larger.

At the time of this writing, BP has announced the failure of their “top kill” approach, and is now planning an even riskier approach, and one that the company’s May 29th press release states has “the intention of capturing most of the oil and gas flowing from the well.” BP spokesmen are also cautioning that this “top hat” approach will not capture all of the oil.  And on May 30th,  President Obama’s energy and climate advisor Carol Browner and BP managing director Bob Dudley both announced that the next (fourth) attempt to control the well will temporarily increase flow, and that “fix” would capture only a majority of flow.  Both warned that oil from the well would most likely continue flow into Gulf until August when it is hoped that the relief well will  result in a successful stoppage of flow.  Meanwhile, BP continues to apply the toxic dispersants to dilute the oil and keep it out of sight.  (It most be noted that in theory, dispersing the oil into small droplets should enhance the biological breakdown of the hydrocarbons.  However, since BP is applying most of the dispersant at the well head where the water temperature is only 39^oF (3.9^oC) any biological activity would be greatly reduced.  And, the Gulf would still be polluted by the dispersant itself, plus the non-carbon fractions of the gushing crude oil compound.)

We have not yet begun to experience the impacts of the oil that has already flowed into the Gulf, but many of them can be predicted with a high degree of certainty.  The extraordinarily rich ecosystem that supported the most valuable commercial fishing industry in the U.S. is doomed.  The vast plumes, a mixture of highly toxic oil and dispersants that are spreading through the Gulf will eliminate life from the surface to the ocean floor.  The spread of the plumes, and their duration will be greatly increased by any hurricane activity in the Gulf, with the predictions for this season being one of above normal activity.  Eventually, some of the suspended hydrocarbons will be biologically broken down, but many toxic elements will remain suspended in the water column.  Another fraction of the oil will settle to the sea floor, coating the corals and other substrates that support marine life; and, the final fraction will rise to the surface, possibly as “tar balls”, some of which will eventually wash up on the beaches.  Virtually all marine life, fish, turtles, marine mammals, plants and invertebrates that come into contact with the suspended oil will be sickened, or mostly likely die.  Entire species such as the imperiled blue-finned Tuna will be heavily impacted. The western north Atlantic bluefin tuna which spawns exclusively in the north-central Gulf is near extinction.  This years eggs are larvae, now suspended in the water column along with the oil plumes, are presumed lost.  

Both the volume and movement of the suspended oil is largely unknown at this time, but the eastward plume is reaching toward Florida, and oil is entering the Gulf Loop Current which travels over the coral reefs of the Florida Keys continuing to western Cuba before heading up the East Coast of the U.S.  It appears likely that oil will reach the beaches of west Florida, and there is great concern about the corals of the Keys.  In fact some experts are predicting that the oil will reach the beaches of Cuba.  The plumes should be reduced as they travel up the East U.S. Coast and will most likely remain offshore, but tar balls may be washed up on the beaches by storms.

The big question is when will the suspended oil reach the coasts of Louisiana,  Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Texas.  The coast of Louisiana is largely composed of marshlands. These marshes are a highly productive nursery for birds, fish and invertebrates such as shrimp and oysters.  As it reaches the coast, the oil suspended in the water column will flow unimpeded under the miles of oil booms that were placed to protect the beaches and marshes.  When oil reaches the marshes it will be rapidly absorbed by the marsh grasses, killing them and leaving little more than highly erodible mud flats.  As the marshes cannot be “cleaned”, there is no saving them once they are oiled.  The newly exposed mud flats will be likely be rapidly washed away by storms and wave action.  The marshlands of the Mississippi delta were originally formed from the rich soils of interior United States carried, as sediment, by the Mississippi river until deposited at its mouth.  This natural process no longer continues since we have “tamed” the Mississippi to reduce flooding and provide reliable navigation.  Today’s sediments are sped down a channelized waterway and deposited in the deeper waters off the continental shelf.  Thus, there is no longer a source of sediment to rebuild these vital marshes.

Removed from the endangered species list in 2009, the highly photogenic brown pelicans illustrate the importance of the coastal marshlands to wildlife.  It is nesting time for the brown pelicans of the Gulf.  Pelicans fishing to feed their young may become oiled by diving into oil polluted waters, and/or they may gather oil-tainted fish which will poison their offspring.  If oil coated pelicans are captured for cleaning and rehabilitation their chicks, or eggs, are left behind and cannot survive.  Since pelicans nest on low-lying ground in the marshes any oil washed into the marshes can coat the eggs or chicks, resulting in their death.  And, as pelicans depend upon a healthy Gulf fish population for food, a decline in the Gulf fishery will surely result in a decline among any pelicans who manage to escape the direct impact of oil. 

When the oil reaches the famed Gulf beaches, they too will be in peril.  While individual “tar balls” can be picked up, any coating of the beaches by the surface oil slicks, or the “dispersed” oil currently suspended in the water column will penetrate the sand and be impossible to remove.  Just as the Alaska beaches contain oil only couple of inches below the highly cleaned rock surface over 20 years after the Exxon Valdez disaster, the white sands of the Gulf beaches will be a source of contamination for years to come.

The above narrative may seem overly dire, but the scope of this disaster is impossible to describe, due to the vast geographical area that will be impacted and the complexity and magnitude of the integrated and highly productive effected ecosystems.  The overall extent of this disaster will be largely determined by two, currently unknown, variables.  The first unanswered question is how much oil has been placed in the aquatic ecosystem and when will the well be brought under control.  An answer to the first part of this question is that since BP must pay a fine for each barrel of oil “spilled” it is very obviously in their best interest to keep this number as low as possible (“out of sight, out of mind”) and since BP is the only party that can provide an accurate answer it is highly unlikely that we will ever know.  

The second, and very large question is the potential impact of storms during this hurricane season.  Storms in Gulf could impede the attempts to control the well and will more thoroughly mix the oil and water suspension of the water column.  If the storms approach land they will push the oil/water mixture into the marshes and on the beaches.  Because of exceptionally warm water temperatures in the Atlantic and Caribbean, and the rapid disappearance of El Nino conditions in the Pacific, predictions for this season all call for an above normal number of hurricanes.  Most forecasts are calling conditions comparable to 1995, the most active hurricane season on record, and when both Rita and Katrina devastated the Gulf region.  A 1 – 2 blow, like Rita and Katrina, this year would likely remove much of the protection provided by weakened marshes and have a far greater impact upon New Orleans than experienced in 1995. 

The economic impact on the Gulf states, especially Louisiana and Mississippi will be enormous.  Coastal land values, tourism,  recreational and commercial fishing, and tax revenues will be greatly reduced.  The economic costs due to the  loss of storm protection provided by coastal marshes could be astronomical.  The Gulf, will eventually “recover”, but the process will be slow and it will most likely result in a different Gulf.  For example, we cannot  know if the shrimping industry will recover.  For example, in Alaska’s Prince William Sound the herring fleet is still idle as the herring have not returned after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.  Without this foundation species the populations of other species have been reduced to the extent that the Prince William Sound commercial fishing season opens in May, rather than March.

Putting aside the economic costs, the biggest loss will be the unique Gulf ecosystems that were our heritage, our duty to protect, and our obligation to pass on to our children.  The oil that is surging into the Gulf is coming from a well on property owned by the citizens of the United States, and the gushing oil belonged to the citizens of the U.S. until we sold BP the right to exploit it in return for royalty payments.    We, collectively as citizens of the United States and also of the world, are responsible for this environmental disaster.  As we continue to demand more, and cheaper energy derived from fossil fuels the resource has become increasingly depleted, requiring us to drill deeper and dig deeper to extract every drop of oil, or spoonful of coal.  Some will say that our insatiable demand for fossil fuels is expanding the limits of technology, others will say that we are exceeding the limits of technology.  The very fact that this blow-out occurred  should indicate that we have exceeded our technology, and the fact that we have no way of controlling the devastating oil gusher for at least 4 months would appear to confirm that we have indeed exceeded our limits.   Our dependence upon fossil fuels is poisoning our air, fouling our land and polluting our oceans.  The solution is clear.  We owe better to our planet and to our children.