Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘greenhouse gas’

State Rep. Lon Burnam filed legislation (House Bill 977) that would have state agencies develop plans to address the implications their policies might have on climate change.

Burnam’s bill is similar to a measure he offered last session. The bill would have 12 entities in the state each publish a plan assessing that entity’s role with respect to climate change.  For example, the Department of Agriculture would “conduct a vulnerability assessment” of the state’s farmland and the Water Development Board would “devise a plan outlining its role in managing the changing water resources.”

All good ideas, we’ll see how far this makes it in this political climate.

Read Full Post »

The much anticipated hearing between the Environmental Protection Agency and Texas regarding the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions will occur this morning in Dallas, Texas.  The hearing is set to begin at 10:00 AM and is expected to continue through 7:00 PM this evening.  The hearing will be held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in the Market Center and will assemble both the public and concerned citizens of Texas for dissent and opinion on the issue.  Many members of the community will be in attendance, as well as other battlemen fighting for justice, including the Sierra Club and of course, Public Citizen, represented by our very own pirate coal activist Ryan Rittenhouse! We will be making our voice heard this morning in Dallas in hopes of changing the current regulations concerning emission standards.  Businessweek has quoted Neil Carman of Sierra Club on the issue, who has assessed that the new rules of the EPA will not in fact be costly to implement whatsoever.

The latest controversy involves the decision made late last year that the EPA would in fact be taking over the permitting process regarding emission regulation in Texas.   In response, Texas is now currently suing the EPA to try and halt their implementation plan which would essentially call for more rigid regulation standards in either new or existing power plant and/or oil facilities.

Old Cowboy western shootout picture

EPA vs. Texas: Emissions Shootout

Texas claims that the EPA is overstepping the state’s authority with respect to emission setting standards.  The EPA’s justification for taking over the permitting process is related to Texas rejecting to comply with the EPA’s new greenhouse gas rules issued earlier this year.  The EPA claims that Texas has left them no other choice but to take over, not only because of the hot-headed letter we sent to EPA refusing to comply with the Clean Air Act, but also since Texas is also the leading nation in greenhouse gas emissions as well as industrial pollution.   By holding this hearing, the EPA is allowing both environmental advocacy groups as well as the public to voice their opinion before the final decision is rendered concerning emission standards.

Will the outcome of this battle prove to be victorious? Tune in next time to find out!

Related Articles:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-01-06/epa-texas-feud-escalates-over-new-carbon-regulations.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7381200.html#drop

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/print-edition/2011/01/14/epas-takeover-of-permitting-to-have.html

Read Full Post »

According to the Associated Press, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has asked a Washington court to allow it to issue greenhouse gas permits in Texas, even though the state has asked the judges to stop the federal move.

The EPA filed its motion on Thursday in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. The motion came after the court asked the agency to wait until Friday before implementing its plan to directly issue the permits in Texas, the nation’s leader in greenhouse gas emissions and industrial pollution.

In its court plea, Texas accused the EPA of overstepping its authority, but the EPA argues that Texas has left it no choice. Texas is the only state that has refused to comply with the EPA’s new greenhouse gas rules that went into effect on Jan. 2.

Read Full Post »

A Dust Bowl storm approaches Stratford, Texas ...

A Dust Bowl storm approaches Stratford, Texas in 1935. - wikipedia.org

Texas is not immune to the effects of increasing greenhouse gases, according to the state climatologist, John Nielsen-Gammon, of Texas A&M University’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Dr. Nielsen-Gammon also says the international science on climate change is fundamentally sound despite challenges from state officials, and the drought in Central Texas is likely to continue.  Below are excerpts from an interview with the Texas Tribune. (more…)

Read Full Post »

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set a December 1, 2011 deadline for 13 states to develop plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, as the agency prepares to implement its major new rule January 2.

A dozen of the states plan to submit emissions plans that do not account for GHG emissions, thereby triggering federal control of their GHG permitting process, but the process between EPA and those states is an expected amicable agreement.  Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon, and Wyoming will submit plans by December 22 and Kentucky; Clark County, Nevada; Connecticut, parts of California and Nebraska are expected to submit their plans after the beginning of the year.

This will enable 49 of the states to issue permits on or around January 2, either themselves or through the EPA.  But Texas, the lone holdout, did not say when it would submit a GHG plan, continuing a standoff with the EPA and the administration on its environmental policies. The state has also filed a series of legal challenges in federal court.

Under the rules of the Clean Air Act, Texas has until December 1, 2011 to submit a revised “state implementation plan” that accounts for regulating GHG emissions. Although the EPA, in its Friday announcement, said it would not wait until then to take control of the state’s GHG permitting and is planning additional actions to ensure that GHG sources in Texas, as in every other state in the country, have available a permitting authority to process their permit applications as of January 2, 2011.

Read Full Post »

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a 100-page proposal, the “PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases” for public review and feedback in mid-November, providing two weeks  for responses by a Dec. 1 deadline. Finalized terms will be put in place by Jan. 2, 2011, in accordance with an implementing “Tailoring Rule” to guide state-level permitting authorities and extend the EPA’s influence over the greenhouse gas emissions of industrial sectors.  Click here to see a copy of the rule and EPA factsheets on the issue.

Operating through permitting authority asserted under the Clean Air Act, the agency will now require CO2 emissions to be considered in the design of every major project in which fossil fuel is combusted or CO2 emissions are released. Included are electrical power generation, refineries, iron and steel mills, pulp and paper mills and cement production.

Effective July 1, 2011, any new source of greenhouse gas emissions that exceeds 100,000 tons of CO2 per year or plant modification adding 75,000 tons annually, will be subject to permit approval based upon currently undefined case-by-case “best available control technology” assessments.

Some background information
In an April 2, 2007, Supreme Court case (Massachusetts v. EPA), the court ruled in a split 5-4 decision that greenhouse gasses fit within the definition of “air pollutants” and subsequently the EPA issued a finding of public health or welfare endangerment.

On Dec. 7, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson signed two distinct findings. One was an “Endangerment Finding,” which found that current and projected atmospheric concentrations of six greenhouse gases (including CO2) “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” A second “Cause or Contribute Finding” found that “combined emissions of these well-mixed [greenhouse gases] from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.”

On April 1 the EPA finalized a light-duty vehicle rule controlling greenhouse gas emissions, confirming that Jan. 2, 2011, is the earliest date that a 2012 model year vehicle meeting established limits can be sold in the U.S. Then on Oct. 25 the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a proposed rule to establish the first-ever greenhouse emission and economy standards for heavy-duty trucks that will phase in during model years 2014 to 2018 arguing that improved fuel efficiency growing out of this ruling will save the trucking industry money.

Read Full Post »

In a Republican dominated America with many Republicans deeply skeptical of global warming, it is unlikely the new Congress will do much on the energy front. A broad plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and use the revenue to fund alternative energy — known as cap-and-trade — is dead

Vyng for the leadership post of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce when the Republicans take the reins in January are four interesting contenders:

  • Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill, who last year, while quoting the Bible in a House hearing said, “The earth will end only when God decides it’s time to be over. ‘This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.'”
  • Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, who apologized to BP for what he called a White House “shakedown” when it agreed to establishing the $20 billion Gulf oil spill trust fund;
  • Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida, who wants to open up Alaska’s wildlife refuge to drilling; and
  • Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan who is considered the front-runner and probably the most moderate of the bunch.  He has vowed to eliminate an offshoot of the committee, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and wrote in a recent editorial, “The American people do not need Congress to spend millions of dollars to write reports and fly around the world.  We must terminate this wasteful committee.”

There is one thing the newly empowered Republicans are sure to go after: the Environmental Protection Agency.

Over the past year, the EPA (after classifing greenhouse gases as a public health threat and then being under court order to do so after losing a Supreme Court challenge by the state of Massachusetts while under the Bush administration) has been quietly working on the sidelines to draft up rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Heavily targeted would be power plants, refineries, and heavy industries such as steel and concrete.

Republican lawmakers have made their intent clear and we can expect them to push for  more oversight of the EPA.  Even going as far as to try to pass legislation to limit the EPA’s authority.

Just last week, EPA issued guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions that will take effect this January. The guidelines were not particularly strict, which analysts took as a sign that the agency was willing to work with industry, but also as a sign that it plans on pressing ahead with its plan to regulate these gases

It seems that dealing with EPA is becoming a reality and Republican efforts to reign them in could get ugly.

Read Full Post »

In today’s Victoria Advocate, Victoria Environmental Programs Coordinator Marie Lester said that they will be in compliance with the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations. (more…)

Read Full Post »

With states scrambling to align their own rules with U.S. EPA‘s new regulations, which are set to take effect on Jan. 2, 2011 and require regulators to start issuing Clean Air Act permits next year for large stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissionsTexas is now the lone holdout, according to an analysis  by the  National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA). Click here to see a copy of the analysis. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Barry Smitherman, chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Texas (PUC), made this statement regarding the “progress” Texas has been making in regards to green energy and “responsible” leadership:

Texas is the nation’s reddest state on the political map. But it produces more green energy than any blue state. The state’s top political leaders are fiercely fighting federal cap-and-trade legislation, but the state is No. 2 behind only New York when it comes to reducing the production of carbon dioxide emissions. (From the Texas Energy Report)

This is true, IF you completely ignore the plethora of new coal plants being proposed and built in Texas. Texas already has 17 coal plants (more than any other state), and there are 12 or 13 more being proposed or built (also more than any other state – by far). Current reductions in greenhouse gases include improved building codes, energy efficiency programs, replacement of pilot lights, air conditioning retrofitting, and wind farms. The reduction of greenhouse gases from all these amounts to about 16 million tons a year. If you add in the wind farms that still need transmission lines built to access their power you get around 43 million tons a year. This sounds great until you realize that the recent coal plant proposals would add 77 million tons of CO2 to our atmosphere every year – far more than offsetting these reductions.

While reductions in greenhouse gasses should, of course, be applauded, it is misleading for Chairman Smitherman to take credit for Texas reducing greenhouse gas emissions when he knows there are so many coal plants looming on the horizon that will completely overwhelm these significant reductions. If Texas were really serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions we would not allow anymore unnecessary coal plants to be built, and start replacing the old ones we have with renewable forms of power generation. This would do far more than anything to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and the public health and environmental health benefits from getting off a fossil-fuel based electric system would far outweigh the cost.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Sixty seconds doesn’t seem like a lot of time; however, there are lots of things that can be done in sixty seconds or less.  For instance, an average adult can type 38 to 40 words and blink between ten and 30 times every sixty seconds (sometimes simultaneously).  Furthermore, an elite distance runner can run about 180 steps every sixty seconds and the world’s fastest rappers can recite over 723 syllables in even less time.

There are a lot of things an average person can do in sixty seconds or less in their everyday life that will, more or less, benefit the earth.  So here it goes…

  • Switch out your light bulbs to ones that are more energy efficient.

Remember that every time you turn on a light in your home or office you send a message to the power grid, demanding more energy.  In America, 301 million people share the same power grid.  That’s five percent of the world’s population, inevitably sucking up a quarter of the earth’s energy. Over half of the grid is powered by coal plants alone, which are the nation’s number one culprit for greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that, for every kilowatt hour of electricity generated by a coal-fired plant, 1.43 lbs of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere.  In Texas, 144 lung cancer deaths and 1,791 heart attacks a year are attributed to pollution from power plants. Switch to energy efficient light bulbs and cut the amount of energy you use by two-thirds.

  • Conserve water by turning off your faucet when brushing your teeth or taking less time in the shower.

The average American family consumes around 300 gallons of water everyday. This works out to be 495,000 gallons per person every year.  What boggles my mind is the fact that there are about 1.2 billion people in the world who don’t have access to clean, portable water and here we are overestimating the frugality of our supply.  We have to realize that water is fast becoming the world’s ultimate commodity, and water conservation is the most cost-effective way to reduce our demand for it.

There are several quick and easy things you can do in your home or change in your daily routine to conserve water.  First, you can simply cut your shower time by 60 seconds or more.  If every member in your family does the same, you can end up saving 200 to 300 gallons a month.  Also, if you are a fan of hot showers and hate the first 60 seconds or so of cold water that first escapes the showerhead, you can use a container to catch the cold water and save it for when you want to water plants or rinse your vegetables.  Second, turn off your faucet when you are brushing your teeth or shaving, and don’t leave the water running when you’re washing dishes—fill one of your sinks for rinse water instead.  These simple acts can save three gallons of water in one day alone.

  • Read your product labels.

The production and distribution of all kinds of clothing have a tremendous impact on the environment.   Wool comes courtesy of sheep, whose herds are known to burp and err… otherwise emit methane—a greenhouse gas that is almost 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. In countries like New Zealand, methane is fast becoming the most potent greenhouse gas.  Researchers for the United Nations now believe that livestock industries are a major contributor to climate change—being responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than cars are.  Furthermore, the method of growing cotton is extremely petrochemical-intensive.   About ten percent of all agricultural chemicals in the United States are used to produce cotton, which is grown on just one percent of all major agricultural land.  The process of growing cotton requires 110 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre.  At the end of the day, the use of these synthetic fertilizers and soil additives can wreak havoc on our soil, water, and air supply–leading to oxygen-less deadzones or even acid rain.  Some popular fashion outlets like H&M are now carrying lines of eco-friendly garments, including those made from organic cotton.  Green is the new black; be aware of where your clothes come from and how they are made.

As for the ever popular subject of organic food…

One may enjoy biting into the more conventional, juicy fuji apple—truly nature’s candy, and some say the sweetest apple in town; however, the organic gala apple is just as good as the former, but better for you and for the environment.  It’s true that organic food products are almost always more expensive than the more conventional fruits and vegetables; although, it would only be fair to point out that organic farming is a major player in the effort to combat global warming.  Birthed during the organic movement of the 1930s and 1940s, today organic farms cover a mere 0.8% of the total farming area in the world. Many people don’t realize the great benefits organic farming offers to our land, lives, and livelihood.  Aside from its major contribution of reducing carbon dioxide emissions (done by sequestering carbon in the soil), organic farming also (1) cuts production cost by 25% to 30% for farmers, (2) reduces soil erosion by up to 50%, (3) has a positive effect on the ecosystem and groundwater supplies, and (4) preserves the original nutritional content of food, giving consumers a healthier and fresher substitute.

  • Reuse and Recycle: refill your water bottles and separate your trash.

Ever buy a bottle of water before working out at the gym, or have a bottle of water with your lunch?  Have you ever contemplated the existence of that bottle of water and how it can affect the environment, even after you have used it?

The United States is the largest consumer of bottled water in the world, with Americans chugging a little less than seven billion gallons in 2004 alone.  It takes one and a half million barrels of oil a year to produce the part polyethylene terephthalate plastic bottles made in the U.S.  That’s enough oil to fuel 100,000 cars commuting into downtown Austin daily (this is also another issue that needs to be tackled).  Globally, it takes more than two and a half million tons of plastic per year to make water bottles.  This is a process that requires a whole lot of energy and, in the end, leaves us with heaps of unwanted plastic waste worldwide. Now, I’m not saying to boycott bottled water.   I am just saying that if you do purchase bottled water—and do so frequently, don’t throw the bottle out right away.  You can reuse the bottle—refilling it with water from the tap or water fountains.

Furthermore, by taking 60 seconds to put your newspaper, tuna can, or salsa jar into a separate recycling bin you can ultimately save humanity years in environmental damage.  About 60% of the household trash thrown away everyday can potentially be recycled.

  • Say something!

Probably one of the simplest things an individual can do to bring awareness to green issues and hopefully effect change is to speak up and say something.  You can talk to the manager of your local supermarket and ask that they carry more organic products.  You could call or email your local representative to speak about environmental issues that affect your family, neighborhood, city, or state.

60secondsWhy not take 60 seconds out of your day to save the earth?

Yours truly,

Ashlie Lynn Chandler

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

For any of you global warming denier trolls lurking out there, here you finally have it: ANOTHER final study that undeniably shows a link between manmade greenhouse gas emissions and the warming that has occurred.

Yes, yes, and the sky is blue as well.  AND the Earth revolves around the sun.  I know most of us don’t need more scientific evidence that putting pollution in the atmosphere fundamentally disrupts the climate, but what is most interesting about this study is it calculates a precise amount of warming per ton of CO2 or equivalent:

Until now, it has been difficult to estimate how much climate will warm in response to a given carbon dioxide emissions scenario because of the complex interactions between human emissions, carbon sinks, atmospheric concentrations and temperature change. Matthews and colleagues show that despite these uncertainties, each emission of carbon dioxide results in the same global temperature increase, regardless of when or over what period of time the emission occurs.

These findings mean that we can now say: if you emit that tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change.

If we want to restrict global warming to no more than 2 degrees, we must restrict total carbon emissions — from now until forever — to little more than half a trillion tonnes of carbon, or about as much again as we have emitted since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

The full article will eb published in the June 11 edition of Nature.

And if that wasn’t enough, this from the HuffPo about coal ash:

Aerial photo of the Kingston fly ash spill

Aerial photo of the Kingston fly ash spill

Just how bad has the coal ash situation gotten in the United States? So bad that the Department of Homeland Security has told Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that her committee can’t publicly disclose the location of coal ash dumps across the country.

The pollution is so toxic, so dangerous, that an enemy of the United States — or a storm or some other disrupting event — could easily cause them to spill out and lay waste to any area nearby.

There are 44 sites deemed by the Environmental Protection Agency to be high hazard, but Boxer said she isn’t allowed to talk about them other than to senators in the states affected. “There is a huge muzzle on me and my staff,” she said.

“Homeland Security and the Army Corps [of Engineers] have decided in the interests of national security they can’t make these sites known,” she said.

There are several hundred coal ash piles across the nation, she said, all of them unregulated.

“If these coal ash piles were to fail they’d pose a threat to the people nearby,” she said. While keeping it from the public, DHS is alerting first responders as to the location of the piles.

“I believe it is essential to let people know,” said Boxer, arguing that if people knew what was in their backyard they’d press public officials to clean it up and protect the area. “I think secrecy might lead to inaction…I am pressing on this.”

Especially in the wake of Kingston fly ash disaster, which was the worst environmental disaster ever in the US– worse even than the Exxon Valdez- this seems pretty simple to me: climate change is caused by greenhouse gases, coal is the major contributor to CO2 emissions, coal ash is so dangerous we can’t even know where the dumps are because of national security… so, let’s stop burning coal? That’s a solution so easy, it’s not surprising anyone in Washington (or for that matter, Austin) hasn’t proposed it.  Oh wait, we have.  It’s called a coal moratorium, and we should be doing it.  For more info, visit www.coalblock.org

Read Full Post »

picture-201Over the past several months, researchers at the Good Company have been compiling a report to measure our own University of Texas’ emissions.  Last week the results were announced…. We’ve got big feet.

Thereport showed that UT’s total carbon emissions were a 292,434 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2006.  Emissions sources not required by the traditional registries are estimated to be an additional 238,237 metric tons.  The vast majority of these emissions were from natural gas consumption, which totaled 233,839 metric tons of CO2.

The release of this information is an important step to be accountable for our greenhouse gas emissions. Says Assistant Director of the Campus Environmental Center and Public Citizen’s own, Druscilla Tigner:

It was exciting!  This was a fantastic opportunity for the University of Texas to really stare its problems in the face, and pinpoint exactly what they need to do to reduce its impact on the environment.  It’s a concrete jumping point for the campus sustainability movement.

picture-151For me, one of the most interesting aspects of the report was a measure of the green house gasses emitted by a typical UT student to determine the per student carbon footprint.  The report offered two general categories of students. (more…)

Read Full Post »

In the fight for a greener future, America’s youth has and is continuing to be one of the strongest forces. Recently, I participated in Powershift 2009–the largest summit on climate and energy in United States’ history. Roughly 12,000 attended the conference, and the overwhelming majority of participants were students from high schools and colleges spanning across the nation!

picture-1

powers
The conference began Friday, and provided endless opportunities for attendees to experience environmentally-geared panels, workshops, movies, speakers, and state breakouts until Sunday. The amalgamation of these informative and inspirational activities worked as a preface that ultimately led to Powershift’s climax that Monday–lobby day. Despite the untimely blizzard-like weather that stormed DC right before that Monday, thousands of youth still trudged through snow and sleet to capitol hill. That day, March 2nd, proved the be the largest lobby day for climate and energy in US history. Senators and representatives from all fifty states were successfully lobbied, with a total of 350 lobby visits! For any of you who are glad that some federal lobbying was completed for your interests, here is the platform that Powershifters presented to US senators and representatives:

1. Cut Carbon Emissions

  • Reduce global warming pollution by the targets science tells us are necessary: 25%-40% below 1990 levels by 2020; and 80%-95% below 1990 levels by 2050.
  • Set an aggressive cap on carbon immediately. If a cap-and-auction mechanism is chosen, 100% of pollution allowances must be auctioned. Any revenue generated from this cap must be used to address the climate crisis in a just and equitable way; none of this money should go to polluting industries.
  • Conserve and restore the world’s forest, ecosystems, and carbon sinks, which are the best natural defense in a warming world.

2. Invest in a Green Economy

  • Create 5 million new jobs through investments in clean energy.
  • Develop a “Clean Energy Corps” to create service, training, and job opportunities in the clean energy economy (1).
  • Train a generation of workers and volunteers to build our clean energy future and help communities adapt to the already changing climate.

3. Power Our Future with Clean Energy, not Dirty Fuels

  • We see a future powered by clean, renewable energy like wind, solar, and geothermal; 100% of our electricity should come from these sources, and we should invest in sustainable transit and energy efficiency.
  • End our dependence on dirty energy by enacting a moratorium on financing and development of new coal and nuclear plants, and oil shale and tar sands infrastructure.
  • Immediately begin phasing out dirty and dangerous energy sources and methods of extraction, while also ensuring a just transition for affected workers and communities.

4. Lead the World to a Clean and Equitable Energy Future

  • Work with other nations to reach a strong new global climate treaty in Copenhagen that puts us on track to reduce carbon below 350 parts per million.
  • Assist vulnerable communities and developing countries in the transition to low-carbon economies and with adaptation to the changing climate.

_________________

This was the type of rhetoric left at the nation’s capitol a week ago, and such requests likely still serve as hot topic points in DC. As a voice of Powershift, and the young environmentalists of this nation, this is the direction we want to see our federal government take now, and in the future. And let me assure you, the overwhelming feeling in Washington experienced by many of the Powershifters is that this direction is highly achievable, at least, more so than ever before in our nation’s history!

(1) The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP15 in Copenhagen.

Read Full Post »

The incredible snowstorm that swept across the east coast yesterday was a bit of a surprise to the thousands of people that flocked to Washington, DC for Powershift 2009. While it did not stop the enviro-activists from protesting dirty energy sources such as coal, some blog noise today indicates that the snowstorm may have blurred the whole message of Powershift.  Several (shortsighted) bloggers wrote that the snow debunks the whole threat of global warming.  This only demonstrates that some people still don’t truly understand the effects of global warming.
hurricane2
“Global Warming” has become a jazz word over the past decade, but it can misconstrue the environmental effects of the general “warming” of our atmosphere. If you’re reading this blog, you are probably familiar with the fact that an increase of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere (hacking cough, coal plants, cough)  has caused an increase in the average temperature of the air and ocean.  But don’t be fooled into thinking that this means that every day will get just a little bit hotter.  The rise in temperature has drastic effects in the meteorological dynamics of the earth, and causes more storms and other abnormal weather events.

We don’t need science to tell us that this is occurring—we all remember the THREE major hurricanes that hit the Texas Coast in 2008 — and don’t need a radar to show that Texas (along with so many other parts of the world) is getter hotter and suffering from drought. So just remember, global warming is not just about heat, it’s about tornados and hurricanes and droughts…oh my!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »