Tuesday, October 30, 2012
I noticed that we keep on hearing the news say that this is "a storm of a century" or "a once in generation event" when it comes to natural disasters and the weather. The problem is that they seem to be saying that all too often. Perhaps, we should consider that these events are no longer a nominally, but rather a permanent change in the weather. Like 50 million other Americans on the East Coast, I got up close and personal with Hurricane Sandy, aka Franken Storm or the Super Storm. These names are effective for good headlines, but we should look at the facts here. Here in the northeast corridor of America, we had hurricane Irene last year and Sandy this year. We have become the Florida of north for Hurricanes without the nice warm weather or the early bird dinner specials. Prior to last year, we had a record breaking amount of snow and then last year we broke a record with the lowest amount of snow fall. We are getting hotter summers, longer Falls and shorter Springs. Half the country is going through a record breaking draught and the other side is deluged with an amount of rain that would have any rationally thinking person of building an ark. We all know what is happening here and, yet, we cannot talk about it. Heck, none of the presidential and vice president debates discussed the bogeyman, the white elephant in the room or the Lord Voldemort of the twenty first century. It is climate change. Let's drop the reference to global warming and just call it climate change. That is what it is here. And any person who denies it is, quite frankly, a moron. I am sorry to insult a half of the American population, including politicians running this country, but you are. I am amazed how the rest of the world acknowledges climate change, but a portion of America still remain in this "Denial of Climate Change Bubble". Of course, that same bubble is in black and white, has Leave it to Beaver and still thinks the Soviet Union is our biggest threat. Look, we have a major problem here. We can worry about the economy, birth control, the right to chose and same sex marriage. However, if we do not have a serious adult discussion about climate change here, there will be no economy to worry about, no birth control needed because human procreation will be irrelevant with the human species being wiped out and marriage will not be an issue because humans will just be trying to survive as opposed deciding to who the want to spend the rest of their lives with when they may not live to se the next day. I hate writing this "end of the world", "red alert", "Danger Will Robinson" blog entry, but I have no choice. We all should be doing the same. I spent 48 hours or more watching the Weather Channel about Hurricane Sandy. Perhaps, that is too much time. But, it worked. Tt scared me enough to get really prepared for this storm and thank goodness I did. If the news can successfully do that for a hurricane, why can't they do it for something bigger like climate change? Perhaps, I should start a blog about that. I just need to get some readers. It reminds me of that old chinese proverb: "If a man rights a blog and no one reads it, will he be heard." The answer is no, but at least I have company with the issue of climate change. I really should start building that ark.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
For the environmentalists out there, it was another disappointing debate. No, I am not talking about whether or not a certain candidate "won" the debate. One of the most important issues within this decade was not asked by the moderator or any of the attending audience of this town hall debate. That issue would be climate change. In fact, it was not asked in the previous presidential debater nor the one and only vice presidential debate. There was discussion about energy in this debate, but such discussion never broached the topic of climate change. Chris Hayes of MSNBC described it best by saying "To discuss energy without discussing climate changes is like discussing smoking without discussing cancer." Unfortunately, the last presidential debate is on foreign policy and most likely climate change will not be asked unless there is a question about how the change of the climate will impact our foreign policy with respect to protecting natural resources. It is a real shame here. Mitt Romney is part of the deniers of climate changes and President Obama has not done enough to bring this issue to the forefront. I would have loved if someone asked Governor Romney on why he does not believe in climate change and how he plans to combat it when this myth becomes a reality. If the person seeking one of the most important jobs is not asked in his "interview" about how he would deal with climate change, how can we really expect that he will do anything about it. This seems another issue that will be kicked down the road to be discussed at another time. Sooner or later we are going to have to deal with it. At least in the 2016 election there will be discussion about this issue because I believe by that time global warming will be having a significant impact on the US economy and the world. Unfortunately, any policy to address it will be reactionary as opposed to preventive. Let's just hope that the next president believes this is an important issue even if he media does not. Unfortunately, I believe only one of them believes it is an important issue. That same person also believes that in the science of climate change.
Friday, October 5, 2012
I am watching Bill McKibben on Bill Maher. Here is some interesting facts: 1. The average temperature has been higher than recorded temperature from the last century for 330 consecutive months; 2. Only 25% of the Arctic Polar Cap remains; and 3. 60% of the US suffered a drought this past summer. Unfortunately, there is still one party in the US and a Presidential candidate that does not believe in climate change. The issue is how we get over this divide. There is a not a Republican Senator that believes in climate change. I guess we can push them out or wait until they come around. It seems to me that the environmentalists are too weak and timid on this issue. They need to learn from the counterparts and take more aggressive tactic to change peoples' minds. One way to convince them is to prove that green technological will also benefit the economy. There is a current belief by many in the business world that green technology is a money loser. In fact, Mitt Romney criticized the President in the Presidential debate this week of the money wasted by the government in green technology. Then again he worked for Bain Capital, which had as many failures as successes. Does anyone remember what happened to KB Toys? The point is that there needs to a be a new message from the environmentalists. Here are some suggestions: 1. The climate is changing and you can either believe in the supporting science or ignore the science and continue believing in unicorns and leprechauns; 2. Green technology will help the economy and America grow or we can let it die on the vine and watch China, Brazil and India become the new environmental superpowers; 3. Taking care of mother earth is not a democratic, republican or patriotic thing. It is just a human thing. 4. I told you so!!!