Via ABC15 from an April 2012 report. Please watch all the way to the end.
I’m no fan of flying, partly because of my many nerve-wracking experiences during episodes of severe turbulence and sudden drops. No matter how I try to talk myself out of surrendering to irrational fear, no matter how many times people tell me how safe flying is, the next bumpy flight reminds me all too much of a scary flight to England years ago that ended in spontaneous passenger applause out of relief that we landed safely.
Those rocky trips are only going to get worse, according to the Los Angeles Times:
Turbulence will be stronger and occur more often if carbon dioxide emissions double by 2050, heating up the atmosphere, according to a study by British scientists published last week in the journal Nature Climate Change. [...]
From 1980 to 2008, 298 passengers on U.S. airlines were injured and three died because of turbulence accidents, the [the Federal Aviation Administration] said.
The study by scientists at the universities of Reading and East Anglia said the chances of running into turbulence over the Atlantic will increase 40% to 170% by the middle of the century, with turbulence strength increasing 10% to 40%.
The study showed that airline emissions are a big contributor to worsening turbulence, and that “for the first time how climate change could affect aviation.”
For years we here at The Political Carnival have been all over climate change deniers, the Drill-Baby-Drillers, and their focus on what goes into their wallets and from whom. We’ve pounded the disaster-in-waiting tar sands pipeline, and we’ve blasted BP.
None of that matters, though, because the oil-addicted remain unconvinced. However, there may finally be a way to change their minds: Via their collective sweet tooth.
Chocolate is a huge business, pulling in $90 billion in global sales annually, $19 billion of it in the U.S., according to market research company Mintel Group Ltd. Price increases and product innovation helped the industry grow 16% from 2007 through 2012, the firm found.
But scientists predict a looming cocoa bean shortage, intensified by climate change and botanical disease.
The International Cocoa Organization said that global production in the last growing year fell 6.1%, and it forecasts a 1.8% slide this year. That would probably cause a cocoa shortfall of 45,000 metric tons in the current marketing year ending Sept. 30, the group said.
Tighter supplies as well as rising sugar and manufacturing costs are adding to the price of truffles and bonbons.
Will the fossil fuel supporters finally see that they must alter their polluting ways once they realize that our yummy, scrumptious, to-die-for, decadent chocolate treats are in danger because of climate change?
Let’s hope these stubborn doubters are not just coo-coo, but also coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs.
Why we would continue to push our luck after this Associated Press/HuffPo report is beyond me:
The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air jumped dramatically in 2012, making it very unlikely that global warming can be limited to another 2 degrees as many global leaders have hoped, new federal figures show.
Scientists say the rise in CO2 reflects the world’s economy revving up and burning more fossil fuels, especially in China.
Carbon dioxide levels jumped… says Pieter Tans, who leads the greenhouse gas measurement team for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That’s the second highest rise in carbon emissions since record-keeping began in 1959. [...]
More coal-burning power plants, especially in the developing world, are the main reason emissions keep going up – even as they have declined in the U.S. and other places, in part through conservation and cleaner energy.
Did I mention there is no such thing as “clean coal”?
[W]e face destructively high sea level rise, water supplies for hundreds of millions of people threatened by climate shifts, global crop declines, bleached coral reefs around the world, a rise in ocean acidification threatening marine ecosystems, and a host of other crises.
Crisis schmisis. All the Drill-Baby-Drillers care about is what goes into their wallets. And President Obama, you and your State Department might want to think long and hard about okaying the tar sands pipeline.
Again, one argument for this potentially catastrophic project is profit. However, all the money in the world is meaningless if 1) nobody is around to enjoy it, and 2) it’s spent on health care that will become increasingly necessary to treat symptoms and diseases resulting from a toxic environment.
A required State Department report on Friday said the “construction and normal operation” of the latest proposed route would have no significant environmental effect. [...]
Environmental advocates, however, see it differently, as does Jones, who was a special adviser to Obama on the topics of green jobs, enterprise, and innovation at the Council on Environmental Quality. [...]
The reason is that tar sands, a particularly raw form of oil, would be traveling through the pipeline, and Jones described it as “the most corrosive nasty fuel on the Earth.”
The study also says that a barrel of oil sands crude would release about 17% more greenhouse gases than one of conventional crude oil refined in the United States in 2005.
Still, the study states that approving or denying the permit for Keystone XL would not have any effect on the development of the oil sands because companies would use rail, trucks and other pipelines to bring the Alberta crude to the U.S.
Opponents of the pipeline strongly disputed the conclusion, asserting that Canada and the oil industry have said that Keystone XL would be critical to the expansion of oil sands development. The opponents have also said that with the pipeline would come greater greenhouse gas emissions.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer did his level best to defend the pipeline, but thankfully, Van Jones would have none of it:
“This report now says 3,900 temporary jobs.” [Not hundreds of thousands, as has been claimed.]
“The pipeline takes it THROUGH America, not TO America, and then sends it to China.”
“This is a foreign corporation… Canadian foreign company that’s gonna actually take land from American farmers and then send the dirtiest form of energy through America overseas.”
“It’s going through the United States to China. We won’t get a drop of it. So we risk our water, risk our farmland and get no oil – bad deal for America.”
“What happens if you’ve got the ‘Obama Pipeline’? Now it’s the ‘Obama Pipeline,’ and it leaks. His legacy could be the worst oil disaster in American farmland history. He’s got to make a tough choice.”
As the L.A. Times reported, the State Department will officially determine whether to issue a permit, but “Obama indicated in 2011 that he would make the final decision.”
Here is Josh Rogin’s piece, including a reminder that it is only a draft, not a policy document, and here’s an excerpt:
The Natural Resources Defense Council issued a statement late Friday afternoon insisting that the new plan does not address its concerns.
“The facts remain absolutely clear: the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in our national interest. Mining the tar sands would be a disaster for our climate,” said NRDC Canada Project Director Danielle Droitsch. “Piping it through the heartland would put our ranchers and farmers at risk. And sending it to the Gulf only makes our country a dirty oil gateway to overseas markets. It’s not in our national interest. It’s a bad idea. It needs to be denied.”
Original post:
Well this is disheartening, to say the least.
Via an email alert from Politico:
A new State Department draft report makes no clear recommendation on whether the U.S. should approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, but it also downplays some of the warnings from green activists who say it would pose a major threat to the Earth’s climate.
Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones told reporters it’s “premature” to say whether the findings of the draft report suggest an endorsement of the pipeline project. Stressing that the report is a draft, Jones said the State Department is “really looking for the public debate at this point.”
Still, parts of the report seem to be a blow to environmental groups that have made defeat of the pipeline one of their top demands of President Barack Obama. But it’s promising for backers of the project, who said the Canadian crude oil could fuel dreams of energy independence.
To repeat: One argument for the pipeline project is profit. However, all the money in the world is meaningless if 1) nobody is around to enjoy it, and 2) it’s spent on health care that will become increasingly necessary to treat symptoms and diseases resulting from a toxic environment.
One of the nation’s most conservative states failed to release a 102-page report by scientists on how climate change is a reality and how the public should be educated about it. Or as I like to call it, cutting off their lives nose to spite their face.
Honesty, common sense, facts, and self-preservation. How novel.
The report includes studies from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
For example, they say, South Carolina “should prepare for increases in wildlife disease, loss of prime duck hunting habitat and the potential invasion of non-native species such as piranha and Asian swamp eels. Many such exotic species have taken hold in Florida, but as temperatures rise, could move into South Carolina.”
Among other disturbing consequences that the state faces, the findings say that “dead zones” in the ocean will increase, as will droughts, flooding due to a rise in sea levels, and of course, disease that would affect sea life and vegetation.
A team of state scientists has outlined serious concerns about the damage South Carolina will suffer from climate change – threats that include invading eels, dying salt marshes, flooded homes and increased diseases in the state’s wildlife.
But few people have seen the team’s study. The findings are outlined in a report on global warming that has been kept secret by the S.C. Department of Natural Resources for more than a year because agency officials say their “priorities have changed.” [...]
Authors of the November 2011 draft said global warming is a reality and the DNR should take a lead role in educating the public about climate change while also increasing scientific research. [...]
Team members left little doubt in the report that they believe rising global temperatures are linked to man-made pollution. That point is widely accepted in the scientific community. Data show sharp increases since the Industrial Revolution of pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, that cause global warming.
The Department of Natural Resources head, who had wanted the report released, retired after he and the then-board chairwoman Caroline Rhodes clashed. Guess which conservative politician promoted Rhodes to her position as board chair shortly after being elected governor? Hint: It rhymes with Schnikki Schnaley.
Here’s an idea: Keep the public informed instead of failing to disclose pesky scientific facts that irk your fellow Republicans (Gov. Haley, I’m talking to you) and your corporate pals. Then again, nobody ever said Republicans had foresight, wisdom, ethics, or good judgment.
Lt. Col Barry Wingard is the lawyer for Gitmo detainee Fayiz Al-Kandari. For their ongoing story + related topics, please click on the link below: Kuwaiti Citizen Detained at Guantanamo since 2002
You can read the complete story here or on Wikipedia.
Subscribe to The Political Carnival Newsfeed via Wikio
The Political Carnival is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
Photographs on The Political Carnival site (please read):
Photographs from other sources sometimes appear on TPC for humorous or illustrative purposes. As it is not our intention to use these images in any inappropriate manner or to infringe upon any rights held by others, anyone holding legal rights in the use of these images who wishes to have them taken down please contact us immediately requesting such removal, with which we will comply promptly.
TPC RSS Posts Feed
TPC Comments Feed
