Articles by Joseph Romm

Record global glacial melt

"Record Glacier Thinning Means No Time to Waste on Agreeing New International Climate Regime," said the U.N. Environment Programme on Sunday.

That statement is based on the data of the World Glacier Monitoring Service, which "has been tracking the fate of glaciers for over a century. Continuous data series of annual mass balance, expressed as thickness change, are available for 30 reference glaciers since 1980." Here's the mean annual specific net balance:

Don’t hold your breath on Lieberman-Warner passing in 2008

I can't imagine anyone believing we would see 60 Senate votes this year for an unwatered-down climate bill.

The center-right folk want big compromises, like a poison-pill safety valve (see below). But Sen. Boxer (D-Calif.) has little motivation to gut her legislation, since next year will probably bring more Senate Democrats and definitely bring a president who wants to take action, rather than one who has done everything in his power to block action and destroy the climate.

E&E News has a good article on this titled, "Lieberman-Warner floor strategy bothers some Senate swing votes" ($ub. req'd):

Take action and express your opinion to California regulators

The following post is by Earl Killian, guest blogger at Climate Progress.

-----

Part I described the background leading up to the March 27 California Air Resources Board meeting that will decide the fate of zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs) in a dozen or more states.

Because the 1970 Clean Air Act allows only two sets of regulations in the U.S. -- the EPA's, and California's (which must be stricter than the EPA's) -- California may be regulating for your state, even if you don't live in California. Roughly a dozen states routinely adopt California's stricter standards -- and sometimes as many as 18 -- and collectively these states can represent as much as half of the U.S. population. Since non-Californians may not be familiar with making their opinions known outside of their own state, this post explains how you can let California regulators know what you think.

First, the Air Resources Board (CARB) takes comments at its website. These comments are printed and given to each board member prior to the meeting. You may also fax or write to CARB. A fax, postcard, or letter addressed to Chairwoman Mary Nichols will reach the entire board.

Second, a phone call to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger helps, since the governor appoints many of the board members. The governor's phone number is 916-445-2841. Press 1, then 5, then 0, and you will be transferred to an operator to leave your opinion about this "hot issue." Alternatively, fax or write using the governor's fax and postal addresses, or use this web contact form.

Californians should also let their assemblymembers and state senators know their opinions.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

CO2’s connection to global warming is not murky

I like the L.A. Times. They do some of the best reporting on environmental issues. So I'm reading a pretty good piece on how the EPA administrator overruled his science advisers on the recent ozone ruling (more on that in a later post), and I come to this remarkable paragraph that shows how the president himself actually intervened to weaken the EPA regulations:

President Bush intervened at the 11th hour and turned down a second proposal by the EPA staff that would have established tougher seasonal limits on ozone based on its harm to forests, crops and other plants, according to documents obtained by The Times. Federal scientists had recommended those growing-season limits as a way to keep vegetation healthy and capable of trapping carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas linked to global warming.

No, no, a thousand times, no!

Can't the LAT do better than "linked to global warming"? The media use the word "linked" to deal with as-yet-uncorroborated or unproven allegations, as in the NY Times' recent blockbuster: "Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring."

Carbon dioxide has been proven conclusively to help warm the globe -- there is no serious scientific dispute of that. Why do you think scientists and everyone else calls it a "greenhouse gas"? Why do you think your own story calls it a "greenhouse gas"?

Time for the Times to stop soft-pedaling climate science.

[Note to the L.A. Times: I really really hope assume you know that greenhouse gases cause global warming. So were you afraid to say, " ... carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that causes global warming" because that means you are acknowledging that global warming is a real phenomenon and caused by humans? If so, that is perhaps even lamer.]

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.