1970
On January 28, 1969 a major undersea "blowout" occurred on the Union Oil company’s Platform A off the coast of Santa Barbara, California. The incident resulted in a 200,000 gallon oil spill that coated both wildlife and beaches, and ignited the environmental movement in the United States with the first Earth Day, being a direct result.
Oil-soaked grebes on the beaches of Santa Barbara,California. January, 1969 (left) and of the Gulf of Mexico. April 2010 (right)
As we approach the 40th Earth Day it is perhaps instructive to look back to the first Earth Day in 1970. In 1970 words such as “ecology” and “environment” had not entered the popular vocabulary and “green” signified nothing beyond a color. Indeed, Earth Day, 1970 is generally credited as the beginning of the “environmental movement”. At the time, the United States essentially lacked any effective legislation to protect our Nation’s air, land and water; indeed, it was perfectly legal to dump unlimited amounts of pollutants into the air or waterways.
On the Climate Change – Are We Toast? site I have previously presented a brief description of the IPCC Assessment Reports. As a consequence of recent concerns due to the discovery of errors in those reports, and the attendant publicity, I have updated that original article to address those concerns. Due to the importance of the issue, I am repeating the update on this site as well.
So what is new – solar energy? wind energy? bio-fuels? electric vehicles? No, these and other energy and transportation technologies have been around for over a century. In the past 100 years, no single technology can make a legitimate claim as a new energy or transportation technology, rather than innovation there have been merely tweaks and incremental development of the technologies of over a century ago.
While the winter of 2009/2010 is not yet over, Europe has suffered from record low temperatures and heavy snowfalls, while the Mid-Atlantic United States has experienced record-braking snowfalls, the most recent crippling the Nation’s Capitol city of Washington, D.C. Meanwhile the Northeastern United States and Pacific Northwest have been experiencing temperatures warmer than usual and below normal precipitation, forcing Vancouver, B.C. to haul in snow for the winter Olympics. In spite of the fact that these conditions are exactly what is to be expected from climate change, the more severe winter conditions have brought out the climate deniers in full force. It is thus probably germane to repeat some of the fundamentals of global warming/climate change.
On January 29, 2010 President Obama today announced that the Federal Government will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent by 2020. While the base year was not specified in the press release (below) it is elsewhere defined as 2008, rather than the 2005 previously used by the U.S. Government or the base year of 1990 used by most other nations. As the nations largest purchaser of energy, this action has the potential to provide a significant stimulus for energy efficiency and innovation in the development of clean energy sources. This action follows the January 28th announcement of non-binding pledge to reduce national emissions of greenhouse gases by 17% reduction by 2020. This latter announcement was made in response to the Copenhagen Accord, has a base year of 2005, and is contingent upon action by the U.S. Congress.
Comprehension of a complex process is often aided by a clear, common understanding of the vocabulary. This is especially true in the study of climatology.
"Global Warming" and "Climate Change" are two terms that are often, and erroneously, used interchangeably. While it is important to know the difference between these two terms, we must also know how they interact.
A May, 2009 post on this site presented the results of a cooperative Yale and George Mason Universities study which reported that only about 51% of Americans believe that climate change is real and a serious problem. Other, recent polls are in agreement that only a slim majority believe in the reality of climate change, and some report that the number is declining. These findings are at odds with most other nations of the world. The United States also has a large number of stridently vocal “climate change deniers”, another apparent difference from other nations.
I have written elsewhere, including this blog, about the folly of such “feel-good, green gestures” as screwing in compact fluorescent bulbs as a meaningful effort to address climate change. While such gestures may have some value as a sensitizing tool, or as as a reminder of the issue, actions of a far greater magnitude are required to slow the rate of climate change. The most effective action that any individual citizen can take is to maintain pressure upon their leaders to pass, and enforce meaningful laws and regulations that both restrict the emission of greenhouse gases and encourage innovation in developing new energy sources.
Twelve years ago the nations of the world met in Kyoto, Japan to chart a course of action that would reverse global warming. 187 nations ratified and signed the resulting “Kyoto Protocol”, pledging to reduce their emissions of the four major greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and sulphur hexaflouride) by varying amounts.
