Tag Archives: Climate change

Drought continues with fear of fire throughout Western Washington

Severe drought is settling in across most of Western Washington — including Kitsap County — where dry conditions raise the risks of wildfire, and low streamflows could impair salmon spawning this fall.

Western Washington is one of the few places in the country with “severe” drought.
Map: U.S. Drought Monitor, Richard Tinker, U.S. agencies.

Scattered showers and drizzle the past few days have done little to reverse a drying trend as we go into what is normally the driest period of the year, from now through August. As of today, the fire danger is moderate, but warmer weather could increase the risk substantially within a day or two.

The topsy-turvy weather that I observed across the Kitsap Peninsula last quarter (Water Ways, April 2) continued through June. Normally, the southwest corner of the peninsula near Holly receives twice the precipitation as the north end near Hansville. But that didn’t happen last month, when the monthly rainfall total was 0.61 inches in Holly and 0.83 inches in Hansville. Silverdale, about halfway between, received 1.11 inches in June.

Rain total for Holly, Water Year 2019. Blue line is current; pink line is average. (Click to enlarge.)
Graph: Kitsap PUD

For Holly, it was the fourth driest month in the record books going back to 1991. The only drier months of June were 2003 with 0.20 inches, 2015 with 0.31 inches, and 2009 with .40 inches. Hansville had six Junes that were drier, and Silverdale had nine.

Differences across the peninsula were also seen in April and May. Holly had 3.45 inches of precipitation in April, below the median average of 4.92, while Silverdale had 2.18 inches, also below the median (3.26 inches). Hansville received 2.27 inches, which was just about average (2.12 inches).

Rain total for Hansville, Water Year 2019. Blue line is current; pink line is average. // Graph: Kitsap PUD

In May, Hansville recorded above-average precipitation with 1.92 inches compared with a median 1.57 inches. Holly and Silverdale were below average, with Holly at 1.16 inches compared to a median 2.22 inches. Silverdale showed May with 0.95 inches, compared to a median of 1.57 inches.

Regionwide, drought conditions are worsening. In May, Gov. Jay Inslee added 24 watersheds to his emergency drought declaration, which now covers about half the state. The declaration was based on forecasts of low rainfall, melting snowpack and higher-then-normal temperatures issued by the Washington Department of Ecology.

Rain total for Silverdale, Water Year 2019. Blue line is current; pink line is average. // Graph: Kitsap PUD

“I appreciate Ecology’s work with partners around the state to prepare for drought and to position us to quickly react to those in need,” said Inslee in a news release. “As the climate continues to change, we must be proactive in taking steps to plan for those impacts.”

The 2019 Legislature approved $2 million to address the drought conditions.

“The emergency declaration allows us to expedite emergency water-right permitting and make funds available to government entities to address hardships caused by drought conditions,” said Ecology Director Maia Bellon.

Washington state drought: orange = severe; tan = moderate; yellow = abnormally dry
Map: National Integrated Drought Information System

Western Washington is beginning to stand out even more for its ongoing drought conditions this year, following moderate to heavy rains in Northeast Montana that erased concerns over drought in that area — although concerns remained from Western Montana through Eastern Washington and into the central part of the state.

Officials with Washington Department of Natural Resources are warning Western Washington residents about the extreme fire danger we’re facing. For the first time in years, the west side of the state may be more at risk than the east side, depending on what happens in the coming weeks. Wherever there is fire, there is smoke, and DNR offers a Smoke Information blog to help people contend with bad air that we may see this year.

Streamflows in Western Washington: orange = 10-24% of normal; brown = 5-10% of normal; red = less than 5% of normal; white = not ranked.
Map: U.S. Geological Survey

Long-term dry conditions are leading to low streamflows throughout Western Washington, including Kitsap County. Streamflows in Chico Creek in Central Kitsap, one of the most productive salmon streams on the peninsula, is roughly half its normal flow for this time of year, according to data compiled by Kitsap Public Utility District.

As of June 18, looking at seven-day average flows, 83 percent of the stream-monitoring stations in Washington state are below normal, with 54 percent listed as much below normal, according to Ecology’s monitoring website.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is taking action where it can, such as closing fishing in the Chehalis River and its tributaries in Southwest Washington to protect spring chinook salmon.

“Low stream flows decrease holding and staging refuges and elevate vulnerability and pressure on these chinook,” the agency said in announcing the closure. “Any encounters of spring chinook could subject these fish to stress, injury, or death.”

Other closures may be warranted before or during the fall salmon migration to reduce stress on the fish as they face low streamflows while returning to spawn.

For additional weather and climate information and long-term weather and climate predictions, check out the weekly “Water and Climate Update” (PDF 3.6 mb) from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.

Amusing Monday: Animations find new ways to talk about climate crisis

I’m always looking for new ways to visualize the causes and effects of excessive greenhouse gases and what is happening to the Earth’s climate. A clever new animation depicts the carbon cycle as a clickety-clackety machine that moves the carbon from place to place.

The video, produced by Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, shows how carbon takes on different forms as it moves from the air into plants and animals, becomes embedded deep in the ground and then is turned into fuel at a pace that upsets the natural cycle. (Don’t forget to go full-screen.)

“Humans have thrown the carbon cycle out of adjustment, with increasingly severe consequences for climate, oceans and ecosystems,” states the description below the YouTube video.

I’ve reviewed dozens of climate-change videos. Some are so simplistic that they provide only a stark vision of the problem without a picture of the science. A video posted by Nina Ree-Lindstad, for example, is designed for 8- to 12-year-olds, and it is meant to be viewed with a teacher who can stop and explain things along the way.

Other videos focus focus on one aspect of climate change, such as the effect of clouds or the findings of the International Panel on Climate Change. Others find new ways of relating to people, such as comparing climate change to a game of Tetris.

Some animations appeal to our emotional side and basically ignore the science. I like the video produced by The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) — the second video on this page. A 10-minute production, by Live and Learn Environmental Education in Australia, tells the story of climate change from the viewpoint of an older flying fox explaining the issues to his son.

The last video on this page, below, is another production by the Smithsonian, showing how the Earth’s population has changed through time, creating an environmental crisis and making it imperative to protect the Earth’s remaining natural resources.

What do people truly believe when it comes to climate change?

Nationwide polls show that more and more people believe that humans are responsible for increasing greenhouse gases and thus altering our climate — including unusual changes in weather patterns, rising sea levels and disruptions in the oceanic food web.

I keep waiting for public opinion to reach a critical mass, so that government officials feel compelled to take serious actions to get climate change under control.

Instead, we see President Trump ordering rollbacks on regulations designed to reduce emissions from coal-fired plants and automobiles. The result will be a greater rate of climate change.

“Americans want reliable energy that they can afford,” declared Andrew Wheeler, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, announcing why the Trump administration supports greater carbon dioxide emissions.

The rollback helps Trump fulfill his campaign promise to revitalize the coal industry — although coal plants continue to close as a result of competition from cheaper natural-gas and renewable-energy sources. Reporter Ellen Knickermeyer’s covered the story for The Associated Press.

Gina McCarthy, who headed the EPA during the Obama administration, was quoted as saying that Trump officials have “made painfully clear that they are incapable of rising to the challenge and tackling this crisis. They have shown a callous disregard for EPA’s mission, a pattern of climate science denial and an inexcusable indifference to the consequences of climate change.”

A large majority of Americans now believe that global warming is taking place, and 62 percent say global warming is caused mostly by human activities, according to an ongoing survey by Yale University and George Mason University.

One reason for the shift in public opinion may be the increasing number of extreme events, such as drought, forest fires, floods and hurricanes, which are influenced by the worldwide change in temperatures. Disasters help to make the somewhat abstract idea of global warming more tangible in people’s minds, wrote reporter Umair Irfan in an article in Vox magazine.

Irfan quoted Anthony Leiserowitz, who helped write the Yale report: “You can experience a drought, flood or hurricane, but you can’t experience global temperatures going up.”

A new study of six Colorado communities following severe flooding in 2016 and 2017 found that widespread flooding across a community caused more people to blame the event on climate change. In contrast, flooding over a small area rarely brings climate change to mind.

“How our community or neighborhood fares — the damages it suffers — may have a stronger and more lasting effect on our climate beliefs than individual impacts do,” said Elizabeth A. Albright, assistant professor at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, as quoted in a Duke University news release. The study by Albright and Deseral Crow of the University of Colorado, Denver, was published online by the journal Climatic Change.

As attitudes change about the effects of climate change, the number of outright “deniers” has been shrinking. Politically, Democrats are becoming more outspoken, while more Republicans acknowledge that there is a problem, as Irfan describes in his story.

Even Wheeler, the EPA administrator leading the reversal of climate-change regulations, expressed concern about the future during his Senate confirmation hearings. On a scale from 1 to 10, “with 10 being you stay awake at night worrying about it,” Wheeler said he would rank climate change as an 8.

“Really?” responded an incredulous Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who asked the question, knowing that Wheeler’s actions don’t seem to match his concerns.

Clearly, it is one thing to be concerned about climate change and another thing to do something about it.

Public-opinion polls could help politicians decide if their constituents are ready for actions to address climate change. But the polls themselves may not provide reliable answers, because it all depends on how the survey questions are asked, said Matthew Motta of Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied the polling issue.

“People’s beliefs about climate change play an important role in how they think about solutions to it,” said Motta in a news release about his latest study. “If we can’t accurately measure those beliefs, we may be under- or over-estimating their support for different solutions. If we want to understand why the public supports or opposes different policy solutions to climate change, we need to understand what their views are on the science.”

For an example of a simple question that can result in different answers, consider the various ways of asking this question, as described in supplemental materials:
Which of these three statements about the Earth’s temperature comes closest to your view?

  1. The Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels.
  2. The Earth is getting warmer mostly because of natural patterns in the Earth’s environment .
  3. There is no solid evidence that the Earth is getting warmer.
  4. Don’t know

The authors concluded from their research that if pollsters remove the option “don’t know” from the list of answers, it tends to push responders toward answers that support the idea of human-caused climate change even when the responders are not convinced.

When an explanatory paragraph precedes the answers, it tends to promote certain answers even more, as in this example:

Global warming refers to the recent and ongoing rise in global average temperature near the Earth’s surface. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses is the primary cause of global warming. Global warming, in turn, is causing climate patterns to change. Climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, or other effects that occur over several decades or longer.

Which of these three statements about the Earth’s temperature comes closest to your view?

  1. The Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels.
  2. The Earth is getting warmer mostly because of natural patterns in the Earth’s environment.
  3. There is no solid evidence that the Earth is getting warmer.
  4. Don’t know

Again the presence or absence of the “Don’t know” option can alter the survey results.

Another method of polling is the agree-disagree approach. Consider the explanatory paragraph above followed by a statement and agree-disagree options:

The Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels

  1. Strongly agree
  2. Moderately agree
  3. Slightly agree
  4. Neither agree nor disagree
  5. Slightly disagree
  6. Moderately disagree
  7. Strongly disagree
  8. Don’t know

In this case, the inclusion of an explanatory paragraph tends to tilt the answer one way and the “Don’t know” option the other way. The authors of the study also discuss the concept of “acquiescence bias,” in which respondents are more likely to “agree” with a statement to avoid appearing disagreeable or being forced to think deeply about a complicated subject.

In the study, the so-called “Pew Style,” based on 1) clear answers, 2) no explanatory text and 3) an option for “don’t know,” resulted in a 50/50 split between those who believe in human-caused climate change and those who don’t. That’s the lowest percentage of any approach.

The researchers found that the greatest support for the idea of human-caused climate change came when using the agree-disagree approach, including an explanatory paragraph and avoiding the “don’t know” option. The result was 71 percent, compared to 50 percent.

These numbers — 50 and 71 percent — don’t actually represent the beliefs of the general population, because the researchers did not survey a representative sample.

This is a lesson I learned long ago when reviewing public-opinion surveys: Don’t just look at the summary put together by pollsters; look at the questions and the possible answers. Do they fairly allow alternative views to be represented?

While public opinion is important, many reasonable people are suspicious of polls, especially one-time polls on complicated subjects. It is better to look at trends, using polls that repeat the same questions over time.

Several studies have shown how difficult it is to change people’s minds about climate change. The best approach, researchers say, is to blend scientific facts into stories about people — whether it be families affected by disaster, scientists working to understand the forces of nature, people who have changed their minds about climate change, and so on.

Most of us have heard the suggestion of contacting our congressional representatives if we want change at high levels. I’ve always wondered how true that might be. I can only comment that during a recent trip to Washington, D.C., many of our lawmakers stressed that they truly are interested in hearing from their constituents, whether through a letter, email or a phone message, or at a town hall meeting. It’s definitely something to consider.

Ocean acidification gets attention in four bills passed by the U.S. House

The issue of ocean acidification gained some traction this week in the U.S. House of Representatives, where bipartisan support led to the approval of four bills designed to bring new ideas into the battle to save sea life from corrosive waters.

If passed by the Senate, the legislation would allow federal agencies to set up competitions and offer prize money for the best ideas for reducing ocean acidification, adapting to ongoing changes or solving difficult research problems. The bills also foster discussions about climate change by bringing more people to the table while providing increased attention to the deadly conditions that are developing along the coasts and in estuaries, such as Puget Sound.

U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer

“We know that changing ocean chemistry threatens entire livelihoods and industries in our state, said U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, in a press release. “There are generations of folks in our coastal communities who have worked in fishing and shellfish growing — but that’s endangered if we don’t maintain a healthy Pacific Ocean.”

Later in this blog post, I will reflect on other Kilmer-related issues, including the so-called Puget Sound Day on the Hill.

In a phone conversation, Rep. Kilmer told me that he was encouraged with the widespread support for a bill that he sponsored called the Ocean Acidification Innovation Act of 2019 (HR 1921), which passed the House on a 395-22 vote. The bill would allow federal agencies to sponsor competitions and offer prize money for the best ideas. Money would come out of existing funds that agencies use for related purposes. The bill was co-sponsored by Northwest Reps. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Battle Ground, along with Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, an Oregon Democrat, and Rep. Don Young, an Alaskan Republican. Five representatives from coastal areas in other parts of the country added their names to the bill.

“There is a legitimate problem, and people are beginning to see the impacts of the changing ocean chemistry,” Derek said. “This should a bipartisan issue.”

Both Democrats and Republicans from coastal regions of the country are hearing from people in the fishing and shellfish industries about threats to their livelihoods from ocean acidification. For some lawmakers that is a more practical and immediate problem than just focusing on the environmental catastrophe shaping up along the coasts.

“A whole lot of people in D.C. still don’t get it; that’s just a reality,” Derek said with respect to the closely related causes of ocean acidification and climate change. President Trump, he noted, has never backed down from his assertion that the climate crisis is a hoax.

“By coming out of the House with 325 votes, we hope to provide some traction with forward motion going into the Senate,” he said of his plan to foster innovations for addressing ocean acidification.

The bill was crafted in consultation with various groups, including the XPRIZE Foundation, which has demonstrated how the power of competition can launch a $2-billion private space industry, according to Kilmer. The Ansari XPRIZE competition resulted in 26 teams competing for $10 million, yielding more than $100 million in space-research projects, he noted.

Rep. Herrera Beutler said she, too, is optimistic that the legislation will lead to innovative solutions.

“Shellfish and fishing industry jobs in Pacific County are jeopardized by the detrimental effects of ocean acidification…,” she said, “and I’m pleased that my House colleagues gave it their strong approval. The next step is approval by the U.S. Senate, and I’ll continue advocating for this legislative approach to protecting fishing businesses and jobs.”

Increasing acidity of ocean water has been shown to result from increasing carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere. The effect is exacerbated by land-based sources of nitrogen, which can increase the growth of algae and other plants that eventually die and decay, thus decreasing oxygen while further increasing carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide readily converts to carbonic acid, which can impair the critical growth of shells in commercially valuable shellfish, such as oysters and crabs, as well as pteropods and other tiny organisms that play a key role in the food web — including herring, salmon, right up to killer whales.

The problem is even worse along the Pacific Northwest Coast, where natural upwelling brings deep, acidified and nitrogen-rich waters to the surface after circulating at depth in the oceans for decades, if not centuries.

To help people understand the economic threat, Kilmer cites studies that estimate the value of shellfish to the Northwest’s economy:

Other ocean acidification bills passed by the House and sent on to the Senate:

Puget Sound Day on the Hill

About three weeks ago, on a reporting project for Puget Sound Institute, I joined more than 70 people who traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with congressional leaders. Climate change and ocean acidification were among the many Puget Sound concerns discussed during the series of meetings.

The annual event is called Puget Sound Day on the Hill, and it includes representatives of state and local governments, Indian tribes, environmental groups and businesses. Participants may share their own particular interests, but their primary goal is to get the federal government to invest in protecting and restoring the Puget Sound ecosystem — the same type of investment that the Washington Legislature expanded upon this year.

During those meetings, Kilmer expressed optimism that federal funding for salmon and orca recovery would match or exceed that of the past two years, when President Trump in his budget proposed major cuts or elimination of many environmental programs. Congress managed to keep the programs going.

Here are my reports from that trip:

Fix Congress Committee

During the trip to Washington, D.C., I learned that Derek Kilmer is chairing a new bipartisan committee nicknamed the “Fix Congress Committee,” formally known as the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.

Goals include improving transparency of government operations, reducing staff turnover to heighten expertise, and implementing new technology. High on the list of challenges is improving the budget and appropriations process, which Kilmer called “completely off the rails.”

The committee recently released its first recommendations with five specific ideas to “open up” Congress. Check out the news release posted May 23 or read the news article by reporter Paul Kane in the Washington Post. One can stay up to date with the committee’s Facebook page.

Derek tells me that many more recommendations will be proposed by the end of the year. If you are interested in the workings of Congress or would like to follow bills as they work their way through the process, you might want to review the videos of committee meetings.

I found it interesting to learn about all the things that technology can do. One of my complaints is that it is difficult to compare final versions of a bill with its initial draft, not to mention all the amendments along the way. Current technology would allow two versions of a bill to be compared easily with a simple keystroke.

“Some technology issues are simple, and some will take more time,” Derek told me, adding that the committee’s staff is limited but some of the ideas are being developed by staffers who work for House members. Some of the ideas are being developed by outside groups.

Other specific issues to be addressed by the committee include scheduling issues; policies to develop the next generation of leaders; ideas for recruiting and retaining the best staffers; and efficiencies in purchasing, travel and sharing staff.

Legislative Action Award to Kilmer

Rep. Kilmer is among six members of Congress — two senators and four representatives — to be honored this year with a Legislative Action Award from the Bipartisan Policy Center, a nonprofit think tank that promotes good ideas coming from both Republicans and Democrats.

“The Legislative Action Awards recognize members with the unique capacity to identify common interests and get things done,” said BPC President Jason Grumet in a March 13 news release. “It takes real skill and commitment to govern a divided country.

“Thankfully,” he continued, “there are still true legislators in the Congress who understand how to build coalitions that deliver sound policy for the American people. It is an honor to recognize six of these leaders today and remind the public that principled collaboration is the essence of effective democracy.”

In accepting the award, Derek issued this statement: “The folks I represent want to get the economy on track — and they want Congress to get on track too. In recent years, there’s been far too much partisan bickering and far too little Congress. That’s why I’ve been so committed to finding common ground.

“Congress is at its best when people listen and learn from one another to find the policies that will move our country forward. It’s an honor to receive this award, and I thank the Bipartisan Policy Center for encouraging members of Congress to work together for the common good.”

Amusing Monday: ‘Science Guy’ flips out during climate demo

“I think we’ve all broken Bill Nye — and I, for one, am absolutely on board with his gritty new reboot,” says comedian John Oliver after “the Science Guy” launches into a profanity-laced demonstration of climate change, in which he literally watches the globe go up in flames.

“I didn’t mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were 12,” Nye tells Oliver’s HBO audience after firing up his blowtorch. “But you’re adults now, and this is an actual crisis! Got it?”

Nye appeared yesterday on CNN’s Reliable Sources, where moderator Brian Stelter asked him about his blowup. The CNN piece, shown in the first video, goes straight to Bill’s line, “The planet’s on f—— fire! You’re not children anymore!…”

“The writers had this premise,” Nye tells Stelter, “and my performance was heartfelt. But keep in mind, you guys, that I’ve been trying to get people interested in addressing climate change since long about 1993.”

Stelter asks Nye how he hopes to get through to climate-change deniers.

“Climate change deniers, to me, are like astrology people or haunted-house people…,” Nye says. “It takes a couple years for people to change their minds.”

I was amused by the full interview on “Reliable Sources,” which includes Nye’s reaction to the recent sighting of UFOs by Navy pilots.

But the original 20-minute segment about climate change on HBO’s “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” is well-crafted, offering Oliver’s typical humorous take on a serious topic. The second video demonstrates how Oliver likes to feed his audience tidbits of real science and politics while sarcastically poking fun at those who seem to ignore the serious problems of our time.

Here’s to hoping that John Oliver, Bill Nye and others will continue their amusing ways to help people learn about climate change.

Amusing Monday: Climate-change comedy grows more intense

The growing urgency of climate change is altering the nature of comedy among those who tell jokes for a living. I’ve noticed a greater intensity in the satire, as warnings from scientists become more specific about the imposing reality of climate change.

Rachel Parris of the BBC’s “Mash Report” discusses this dire topic in a most cheerful way, as you can see in the first video.

“Some of you have been asking, ‘Rachel, all this feels kind of inevitable,’” Rachel says in the video. “’Would it be better if we just give up and let the world burn? Who really needs birds and trees? I’d rather just be taking pictures of my own face.’”

Maybe the damage would be less, Rachel continues, if we all went limp and “floppy” like a drunk person falling out of a window.

Climate-change comedy used to be mostly jabs about higher temperatures and rising oceans. When he hosted “The Tonight Show,” Jay Leno would toss out one-liners about what would happen if the Earth continued to warm beyond 2015: “Hillary Clinton might actually thaw out.”

Reader’s Digest once suggested new names for cities when the polar ice caps melt, names such as “Atlantis City, New Jersey.”

Mary Pols, a reporter for the Press Herald in Portland, Maine, uncovered the Leno and Reader’s Digest jokes and others while touching on the history of climate-change comedy. Her story focused mostly on a local man, Jason Wentworth, who gave up his green laundry business to launch a career in comedy, focusing on climate change. He has even set up a Go-Fund-Me account to get started, as seen in the last video on this page.

Jason’s routine often targets his own audience with jokes about the failure of people to address climate change on an individual level. I would think this would leave audience members feeling at least a bit uncomfortable. Here’s one of Jason’s jokes cited by Mary Pols:

“So many people say, ‘I would ride public transit more, but it is so inconvenient.’ My response is, ‘Have you tried it?’ I want to talk about how inconvenient it is to row Grandma in a canoe to a Red Cross center after a hurricane and then return to your house to rip out wet sheetrock. Or if you live in Paradise, California, it is super inconvenient.”

“Weekend Update” on “Saturday Night Live” sharpened its approach after dire warnings came out from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as you can see in the second video.

“We don’t really worry about climate change, because it is too overwhelming, and we’re already in too deep,” says co-host Colin Jost. “It’s like if you owe your bookie a thousand dollars, you’re like, “Oh yeah, I gotta pay this dude back.’ But if you owe your bookie a million dollars, you’re like, ‘I guess I’m just gonna die!’”

It seems some of the late-night hosts are becoming less humorous about climate change and more direct in their sarcasm. I featured video clips from Stephen Colbert’s show in Water Ways in February. The third video on this page is a clip from “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” who has always found the right sarcastic voice for his news-based commentaries.

Climate Sense: I have a question about this blog, plus Senate debate video

I would like to ask a question about this blog before pivoting to the debate over the Green New Deal.

Item 1: The future of this “Climate Sense” feature

It’s the end of March and the end of the first quarter of 2019. I thought this would be a good time to assess the success or failure of my weekly list of stories related to climate change.

The intent of “Climate Sense,” as I mentioned at the start of the year, is simply to share some of the important research, political developments, fascinating viewpoints or inspiring opinions that I come across during my reading.

So is anybody reading these blog posts? And, more to the point, is anybody getting any value from them?

These are questions that I would like every reader to answer, especially if you believe these weekly blog posts are worthwhile. You can comment in the comment section below or send me a private email at ChrisBDunagan@gmail.com. I’m always open to suggestions — even more in this moment, as I ponder the future of this series.

Your comments will determine whether I keep this going as is, change it in some way or drop it entirely. So please take a moment, if only to say “Keep it” or “Drop it.” Thank you.

Here are the “Climate Sense” blog entries to date:

Item 2: Green New Deal on the Senate floor

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, apparently thought he would embarrass Democrats by forcing a vote on the Green New Deal, which calls for massive changes to reduce greenhouse gases. Most Democrats voted “present,” but the floor debate became a rare chance to discuss climate change in the Senate — and now many Republicans are acknowledging that something needs to be done. Will this make a difference?

Reporter Marianne Lavelle offers a pretty good summary of what happened for Inside Climate News

Here is what our two Democratic senators and Alaskan Republican Lisa Murkowski had to say on the Senate floor:

Climate Sense: Sharing a little optimism about climate change

One of the most optimistic stories I’ve read — and listened to — about climate change comes from Dan Charles, National Public Radio’s food and agriculture reporter. In a three part-series, Dan takes us on a trip to the year 2050, imagining a time when the world has solved the climate change problem.

Also in my readings this week, I’ve stumbled on some stories about scare tactics in Congress and how to turn back the clock on climate emissions.

Continue reading

Climate Sense: So much is still about politics

Climate change is finally being discussed in Congress and by the Trump administration, but not necessarily in a good way. This week I share some of the things I’ve been reading with regard to the politics of climate change. If there’s a silver lining, it could be that climate change is getting some attention among politicians. I’m holding some interesting scientific studies for another week.

Continue reading

Climate Sense: The road to clean energy – politics, technology and culture

Experts say it is possible, in the not-too-distant future, for the United States to generate nearly all its electrical energy from sources that do not produce climate-changing greenhouse gases. But first some political and technical hurdles must be crossed.

In this week’s “Climate Sense,” I share some news articles that I found noteworthy, as well as an interesting description of five movies about climate change — including the one in the video player here. Films can help bring about cultural change, as mentioned in a review of five films about climate change (Item 6 at the bottom).

Continue reading