Netroots Nation 2008!

My friend Darksyde over at Daily Kos has just announced the panel he has put together for Netroots Nation 2008 (formerly YearlyKos), an annual gathering of the progressive blogging community that will take place in Austin, Texas, this July. The tentative title of the panel is “Restructuring U.S. Science Policy,” and I am thrilled and honored to have been invited to participate. In fact, the whole convention looks exciting to me, so I’m planning to be there the whole time. In this, hopefully, course-changing election year, this vibrant grassroots flowering may help tilt the balance in this country back toward true democracy again. Worth a try anyway. Lots of good creative energy down there. Check out the video on the home page, and I think you’ll agree.

Speaking of democracy, on June 1, Jim Hansen and I will be appearing together at an event sponsored by the Lexington Global Warming Action Coalition in none other than Lexington, Massachusetts, a few hundred yards from the spot where the first shot of the Revolutionary War was fired. I suspect democracy may be a theme there as well …

(I try to keep an up-to-date list of appearances by Jim and myself in the “appearances” category of this blog, which you will find in the column to the right, or here.)

“Fair and Balanced” on Democracy Now! – Part I

Two weeks ago, now (an eternity in the blogosphere, God knows) Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez interviewed Jim Hansen and myself on their independent news program, Democracy Now!

This particular outlet is probably about as far from Fox News as you can get. “Pioneering the largest public media collaboration in the U.S., Democracy Now! is broadcast on Pacifica, NPR, community, and college radio stations; on public access, PBS, satellite television … ; and on the internet. DN!’s podcast is one of the most popular on the web,” claims their Web site. However, the old (and questionable) Fox News adage about “fair and balanced” reporting springs to mind as I think back on two aspects of the interview, one salutary and the other somewhat less so.

Jim, Amy, and Juan sat around a table in Democracy Now!’s New York studio, while I was wired in from a studio in Watertown, Massachusetts, near my home. Just before we went live, as the sole proprietor of this small establishment was framing me in his camera, he told me to get ready for a good conversation: “This isn’t sound bite news.”

Indeed, Goodman and Gonzalez proceeded to conduct one of the best interviews in my experience, for the simple reason that they listened. When they asked a question, they would sit back and give Jim or myself pretty much all the time we needed in order to respond. I don’t think they once interrupted.

The first pleasant surprise occurred even before the interview began, when Gonzalez’s voice piped up in my earpiece actually asking me if there was anything I wanted to cover that day. There was:

Continue reading

Gretchen, Do Not E-mail Me on This!

Here’s an essay that Jim posted on his Columbia Web site on January 25th. He notified his list of the posting in an e-mail entitled “Gretchen Don’t E-mail Me On This!”, which is close enough to the title of one of the chapters of my book, Censoring Science, to which he refers.

The Shadow on American Democracy

I just did an interview with CNN (Miles O’Brien) re “censoring science”. The point I emphasized is that overreaching by the Executive Branch, trying to make government science submit to political command and control, is a threat to our democracy, and, as a result, a threat to the planet. The scary part about this story is that seeds have been sown, and a playbook has been codified (although not written!), that will make the situation much worse unless the American public recognizes the problem and makes an issue of it. This is a bi-partisan problem – and neither party is trying to fix it. It is remarkable how wimpish Congress has become in accepting subjugation to the Executive Branch, contrary to designs and intents of our Founding Fathers

Congressional testimony. Do you know that before a government scientist testifies to Congress his/her testimony is typically reviewed and edited by the White House Office of Management and Budget? When I asked for a justification, I was told that a government scientist’s testimony “needs to be consistent with the President’s budget”.

Continue reading

Appearances Update: Fresh Air and Fighting Coal in Iowa

As the year kicked off and most of the country dove straight into the Presidential primaries, Jim and I continued our mostly separate and occasionally joint effort to bring global warming into the discussion.

On Tuesday, January 8, we were interviewed together by Terry Gross, on NPR’s Fresh Air.

Jim has a full week in front of him (which is not unusual). On Tuesday, the 15th, he and Dr. Ed Weiler, Director of Goddard Space Flight Center, which is the parent organization of Jim’s Institute, the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, will be interviewed by Miles O’Brien of CNN, largely about the events related in my book, Censoring Science. Not sure exactly when Miles’s show will air, but I’ll update my Recent and Upcoming Appearances posting when I find out.

Then Jim takes his message to his home state of Iowa. He will speak in a few different places around the state during the course of the week and conclude by testifying on Friday morning, January 18, to the State of Iowa Utilities Board, against a proposed coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown. As usual, he will testify as a private citizen, using his vacation time from NASA to make this trip.

 Meanwhile, I will appear on a few more radio shows.

You can always keep abreast of both of our rapidly-evolving schedules by clicking on “appearances” in the column to the right, just below “categories”.

Cheers,

Mark

Open for comments

Well, we just went live …

The new Web site has just gone up, and I’ve broadcast an e-mail to let the world know about that and the birth of this blog. Guess I’ll take the existential step of asking for your comments — about the site, the blog (see “welcome to ‘tipping points’ ” to the right), the book … and, of course, the issue.

Please be polite.

Thanks,

Mark

Boston Globe Op-ed: The wrong choice for Massachusetts

The wrong choice for Massachusetts
By James Hansen, January 2, 2008

THE EARTH is close to passing climate change “tipping points.” Greenhouse gases released in burning fossil fuels are nearing a level that will set in motion dangerous effects, many irreversible, including extermination of countless species, ice sheet disintegration and sea-level rise, and intensified regional climate extremes.

As a society we face a stark choice. Move on to the next phase of the industrial revolution, preserving and restoring wonders of the natural world, while maintaining and expanding benefits of advanced technology. Or ignore the problem, sentencing humanity and other creatures to struggle on an increasingly desolate planet. Massachusetts is on the cusp of making this choice, and, barring citizen objections, is in danger of making the wrong choice on two counts.

Energy legislation in the state Senate would reshape rules designed to encourage renewable energies, modifying them to encourage energy generation from coal. A proposed amendment to the “Green Communities Act” – in most respects a good piece of legislation – provides incentives for coal gasification technologies without requiring carbon capture and sequestration. If passed, Massachusetts would be promoting projects that increase greenhouse gas emissions, just when we need to reduce emissions!

Meanwhile, the Department of Environmental Protection granted draft approval and is poised to grant final approval to a project extending the life of an 80-year-old coal plant with coal gasification that would not capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions. Prolonging the life of NRG Energy’s coal-fired power plant in Somerset would be a tragic mistake. This plant was scheduled to shut down in January of 2010 or to “repower” as a new cleaner plant. NRG now proposes to do neither. Instead, it wants to retain its dependence on dirty fuel, converting the plant’s boiler to “plasma gasification” of coal.

NRG and state officials have resisted a comprehensive environmental review, demanded by environmental groups like the Conservation Law Foundation, which would compare the greenhouse gases that NRG’s proposal is expected to emit over its extended lifetime with other scenarios, including a complete shutdown. The Somerset project should not be rushed through without full environmental review.

If the wonders of nature, our coastlines, and our social and economic well being are to be preserved, our society must begin phasing out coal use until and unless the carbon dioxide emissions are captured and stored. Continuing to build coal-fired power plants without carbon capture will lock in future climate disasters for our children and grandchildren.

The people of Massachusetts took great risk, for the sake of themselves and their progeny, when they drew a line with the British at Lexington and Concord. It is time for a line to be drawn with the powerful special interests, who reap profits from our fossil-fuel addiction.

Changing the course dictated by fossil-fuel interests will not be easy. It requires leadership to define a path with increased support for energy efficiency and clean-energy sources. But this is what citizens must demand, as they tell their government to say no to coal.

The alternative is to shrink from personal responsibility and allow the pleadings and misinformation of special interests, driven by motives of short-term profit, to determine government actions.

But is that a picture of our generation we dare leave for our children, a picture of timidity in the face of special-interest greed?

We live in a democracy. Policies represent our collective will. We cannot blame others. If we allow the planet to pass tipping points, to set in motion irreversible changes to the detriment of nature and humanity, it will be hard to explain our role to future generations.

Today, the citizens of Massachusetts have two opportunities to change this course: first, by contacting legislators and demanding rejection of attempts to subsidize coal through legislation that mistakenly treats coal gasification as a “clean energy” technology; second, by demanding that NRG Energy be held to its original commitment to shut down or repower as a truly new and clean plant.

This is an opportunity for citizens of Massachusetts to exercise leadership again, taking bold actions to oppose entrenched special interests and helping initiate change that is essential if we are to retain a hospitable climate and a prosperous future for our children.

James Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. This column is his personal opinion.

© Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

RealClimate selects Thin Ice as a top book of 2007

Surprisingly,  since the book was originally published in 2005, Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate has selected Thin Ice as one of the more interesting books to have crossed his desk in 2007. Gratifying as well, since it indicates that the book remains relevant to a team of people who truly understand climate science and the global warming issue.

Gavin alludes to the important role that Jim Hansen plays in Thin Ice. In fact, outside of the folks in Lonnie Thompson’s group, Jim is probably the most important scientist in that story: while Lonnie and his gang were going into the high mountains to retrieve some of the most convincing evidence there is that the Earth is getting warmer, Jim was explaining why. This sparked my interest and was part of the reason I approached him in early 2006 to ask if he would like to collaborate on the book that eventually became Censoring Science.

——————

RealClimate.org

21 December 2007

Books ’07

Filed under: Communicating Climate Climate Science- gavin @ 1:33 AM

We have a minor tradition of doing a climate-related book review in the lead up to the holidays and this year shouldn’t be an exception. So here is a round-up of a number of new books that have crossed our desks, some of which might be interesting to readers here. …

“Thin Ice” by Mark Bowen gets a big thumbs up as well. It is more or less a biography of Lonnie Thompson, but as I said in my review in BAMS, it is by no means limited to Thompson’s work. Much of the book focuses on various important figures in the history of the science of climate: Arrhenius, Tyndall, and Keeling among them. And while paleoclimatology takes the main stage, one could read this book alone for a very clear lay-persons understanding of the physics of the greenhouse effect, or for insight into the mind of the brilliant and provocative James Hansen, or the story or Roger Revelle and David Keeling’s measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is notable that Bowen has a PhD from MIT, so is no newcomer to science. …

Happy holidays!