Advertisement

Archive for Monday, April 22, 2013

Letter: Earth’s not flat

April 22, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

It’s time to accept the science regarding climate change: It’s happening, and humans are the cause.

Some people are still “debating” whether we made it to the moon or whether the earth is flat. But these are not reasonable, informed discussions. The debate regarding climate change is similarly absurd.

Jim Powell, who was a member of the National Science Board for 12 years (first appointed by President Reagan, then reappointed by President George H. W. Bush), conducted a search of peer-reviewed articles published between 1991 and 2012. Of the 33,690 authors who contributed to these articles, only 34, about 0.1 percent, “clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming.”

Why do a few noisy individuals continue to reject the science of climate change? Perhaps it’s because they feel that there’s no solution and it’s too overwhelming to consider.

Well, good news, there’s a simple solution that effectively addresses climate change: a revenue-neutral carbon tax. This is a market-based solution which would drive the economy to renewables, create new jobs and protect the poor and middle class by returning all collected revenue to Americans on an equitable basis. Learn more at citizensclimatelobby.org.

As we celebrate Earth Day 2013, it’s time to end the “debate” about climate change. The world is round, we made it to the moon, climate change is real and humans are to blame. Humans also have the capability to remedy the situation – so let’s go for it!

Comments

Water 12 months ago

Just how many humans are necessary for us to do whatever it is we are doing? It's time to start depicting the human growth timeline with decreasing animal populations on the same graph. There was a time people would see domesticated farm animals in the city. People rode horses in the city. Now, people complain about the neighbor's cat in their yard or a dog at the farmer's market. We have become indifferent towards the extinction of animals we do not encounter our daily lives. The human race is a success at over 7,000,000,000 people on earth. Why do we have fertility clinics? There's victims living in squalor all over the place. Adopt one should you have the [need] to be a mom. Why wait until we're dining on Solient Green?
The dichotomy between access to energy sources and a clean environment will not resolve with an ever increasing human populace.

0

Richard Heckler 12 months ago

Lynate Pettengill is among the locally informed. Her letters do not come with nonsense and have been correct throughout the years. Lynate Pettengill is supported by her brothers and sisters at Union of Concerned Scientists.

Big Picture Solutions

Who can reduce global warming emissions? We can—together. Our individual efforts are important, but the biggest impact on climate change will come from large-scale changes—well-reasoned international policies; thoughtful, systematic efforts to reduce polluting fossil fuel energy sources and unsound land use practices; and steady progress toward a cleaner, sustainable future.

With your support, UCS finds practical big-picture solutions to avert the worst consequences of global warming.

In the articles listed below, learn about legislative efforts and proven, realistic programs and policies to reduce global warming emissions and transition to a clean energy economy.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/big-picture-solutions.html

0

rtwngr 12 months ago

The flat Earth theory was bad science based on too little facts. So is "climate change". Formerly global warming. Formerly advancing ice age. Emissions of "green house" gases from nature exponentially dwarf those of humans. This is a fact! Any given active volcano, by itself, emits more "green house" gases into the atmosphere than the entire planet combined on an annual basis. Oh how filled we are with our own self importance to believe that we are mightier than nature itself. That we lowly humans can effect climate on a global scale. Sure, and I can make it rain.

0

Centerville 12 months ago

Letter makes the scientific method sound like a prom queen election.

0

George Lippencott 1 year ago

"Can you tell us exactly where continuing business as usual will take us?"

Love it. The bear is charging me so I should jump of the cliff??!!

All I am asking is that the "scientists" demanding remediation quantify what that must be and where it leads us. I get cute responses but never a real answer. Why should I believe you that charging off to wherever is better than a more measured and focused effort with goals and time tables - like normal scientists actually employ?

0

Paul R Getto 1 year ago

Our science outruns our sense as a species. Just because we discovered hydrocarbons doesn't mean we must exploit them at all costs. A reasonable transition can be arranged, but we are argumentative and selfish chimps. It won't be easy, if it can be done.

4

kernal 1 year ago

"I am not comfortable with going somewhere when I do not know where!!" Do we ever really know where we're going? Too many variables.

Yes, our species is the main contributor to climate change by our arrogance, denial and excesses. Unfortunately, the U.S. was the leader in all this and now we need to lead the way to reduction, because the longer we put off acting on this, the worse the economic disaster will be for everyone, not just the U.S. or Africa or China, but Every One. Every country with a sea coast will experience loss of coastal land which will displace millions of people and affect industry and farming. Then there's the desertification taking place.

We've messed up, people. Bother!

2

George Lippencott 1 year ago

Well I agree with you on all but your last. I challenge your “We know what to do” statement.

If we do all the things that have been promoted exactly what do we achieve? Do we slow down the change? Do we reverse it?

Exactly what will be the standard of living if we do enough to actually arrest change? Will it be more acceptable then living with the change?

The rest of the world seems to have turned its back on remediation. Can we solve this problem alone? Must we reduce our standards to that of a third world (maybe second world) country?

Before we start talking about real sacrifice could somebody specify the end point? Or is the end point so dire that we are afraid to discuss it because it will be immediately rejected?

I am not comfortable with going somewhere when I do not know where!!

0

Clark Coan 1 year ago

According to an April 18 article in the Wall Street Journal, things do look good.

"As energy consumption has grown, this means total global emissions of CO2 rose 445 from 1990 to 20110, the International Energy Agency said on Wednesday...The IEA estimates that a cut in carbon emissions per unit of energy of more than 60% is needed to prevent global average temperatures rising by more than 3.6 degrees F in the long term, and maintain current levels would yield a temperature rise of 10.8 F."

"China and India accounted for 955 of the growth in global coal demand in 2000 to 2011, the IEA said...This month, the Asian Development Bank warned that Asia's use of fossil fuels was likely to keep rising for the next 20 years, doubling the region's carbon output by 2035 and leaving the prospects for emissions control looking grim."

0

CWGOKU 1 year ago

Coldest Spring around here this year that I can recall. Still, I'll go hug a tree

0

Les Blevins 1 year ago

It also has a lot to do with money.

Today's JW Editorial - Westar’s latest rate shift request would be burdensome for smaller consumers.

Westar Energy’s latest rate-increase request would represent a major shift in the burden for supporting the utility from larger customers to smaller consumers

By J-W Editorial April 22, 2013

Ask and ye shall receive. Especially if you’re Westar Energy Inc. The cheering on one sideline comes from medium and large businesses and schools. The mumblings and exclamations of discontent come from residential customers, small businesses and, unlikely as it might be, probably Kansas City Power & Light. The current concern is Westar’s request to the Kansas Corporation Commission to raise an additional $31.7 million annually by boosting rates for its residential customers — and lowering them for some 5,500 business customers. According to figures compiled by the Citizens Utility Ratepayer Board, medium and large businesses will see their rates decline between 6 percent and 8.4 percent, resulting in about $36 million less revenue for Westar. At the same time, however, rates for residential customers will go up by 8.77 percent, resulting in an additional $62 million for Westar. Increased rates for small business will contribute another $21.5 million. Altogether, those increases represent more than half a billion (with a B) in resources not available for individuals to save or spend on education, purchases to cycle through the local economy, or just plain fun. It’s time for Kansas utility customers to stand up to climbing rates. Unlike Westar, they may not get everything they want, but they should at least ask! Comments skull1 hour, 12 minutes ago It's ok...Westar is going to use all those profits to create jobs...

LesBlevins says;

Wake up Kansas, Wake up Lawrence Leaders, Wake up citizens It’s time for local citizens and utility customers to stand up to City Commissioners and to Westar Energy concerning energy issues and constantly climbing utility rates,, and it’s also time for Kansas government to take action to stop the shift of economic burdens from the rich to the poor. Representatives of utilities operating in Kansas say there is nothing they can do about their present CO2 emissions. (WRONG) “There is no large-scale, proven technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions,” said Karla Olsen, a spokeswoman for Westar Energy Inc.(WRONG) This statement is actually irrelevant because there are distributed energy options that are cleaner and can save money for local ratepayers but City of Lawrence officials will not even discuss how to implement such improvements even though the would provide many benefits. ================== Google this; Google has invested $1B in renewable energy in hopes that investments made now will put them in a strong position in the future when energy from fossil fuels become more expensive and renewable energy becomes cheaper. It’s called forward thinking.

0

Paul R Getto 1 year ago

The war on science has nothing to do with science and everything to do with ideology.

7

Commenting has been disabled for this item.