I want to punch climate change in the face. A blog about the interactions between the built environment, people, and nature. - FAQs - Follow - Face - Ask - Donations - Climate Book Store - Submissions

Recent Tweets @climatecote
Posts tagged "election"
All this other noise, I think, are coming from know-nothing, disgruntled Romney staffers who — you know — don’t like the fact that I said nice things about the president of the United States. Well, that’s too bad for them…
NJ Gov. Chris Christie, criticizing Romney’s “know-nothing” staff shortly after voting for Romney
Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both found success while their parties were out of power in Congress — and President Obama can, too. If he listens to people on both sides of the aisle, and builds the trust of moderates, he can fulfill the hope he inspired four years ago and lead our country toward a better future for my children and yours. And that’s why I will be voting for him.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s clear-eyed op-ed endorsing Barack Obama for President is a must read. Forget the commentary celebrating or criticizing his decision, read his endorsement and think for yourself.

Why am I not working for PBS Newshour?! Fantastic and nimble analysis of Hurricane Sandy and Obama’s response. What are the impacts of Sandy on the campaign? How will those impacts be measured and quantified? Are Americans safe and feeling confident? 


Frankenstorm Becomes Campaigns’ ‘October Surprise’

With nine states declaring states of emergency in preparation for a superstorm, Hurricane Sandy has derailed political campaigning and some early voting this week. Judy Woodruff talks to Dan Balz of the Washington Post and USA Today’s Susan Page about the likely effects on the race during the last week before Election Day.


Spread this link:

Obama goes on MTV(‽) to talk about why he didn’t debate climate change! What the interobang

"Every day in Colorado, voters are bombarded with information about the presidential candidates — some of it useful, much of it frivolous. Too often, the endless chatter from the cable news talking heads is focused on the latest campaign misstep or candidate gaffe.

It’s hard to believe, but despite all the noise on our television screens, the biggest challenge of our generation — climate change — has not received the attention it deserves from most reporters. But during the first presidential debate, on October 3 at the University of Denver, moderator Jim Lehrer has the chance to lead the presidential candidates in a thoughtful discussion about this issue on the national stage.

This past summer, the climate crisis fell right into America’s front yards — in some cases literally. With trees crashing through their windows, water flooding under their doorsteps and droughts destroying their crops, Americans have been hurting from the effects of weather extremes that climate scientists predicted would happen as a result of global warming. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently reported that July to August ranked as the 3rd hottest summer on record in the continental United States.

Here in Colorado, we’ve suffered unprecedented wildfires that have destroyed homes and businesses — causing tens of millions of dollars in damages and the loss of lives. At the same time, warmer temperatures have led to less snow and earlier snowmelt, which can have a devastating impact on the state’s tourism economy.

As renowned climate scientist James Hansen recently put it, “It is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.”

Climate change is happening and the effects will only get worse if we do not take action soon for our children and grandchildren. Given this, it’s only natural to assume that the issue will be a topic of national conversation. Unfortunately, the news media has largely failed to give climate change the coverage it deserves.

According to a recent study of major media outlets, only 8.7 percent of television segments reported on the record-breaking July heat waves in the context of climate change. You were far more likely to hear about the latest celebrity trends than how President Obama and Governor Romney plan to address the problem.

That’s why the upcoming Colorado debate, focused on domestic issues, is so important. Having Lehrer moderate this debate gives us a unique opportunity — his show, the PBS “NewsHour,” has often provided substantive coverage of important issues ignored by other news outlets. He’s well positioned to lead a meaningful discussion between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

Climate change is not a partisan political issue. In fact, according to a recent Washington Post poll, 73 percent of registered voters say the federal government should regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming, including more than 70 percent of Independents. If the public had the chance to hear from both candidates, they could make up their own minds. But first the question needs to be asked.

There is no doubt that there are vast differences between President Obama and Governor Romney. Colorado voters – as well as the millions of voters across the country who will be tuning in for this all-important first debate – deserve to hear how these two candidates would tackle the climate crisis. And we hope Lehrer gives the American electorate that opportunity.

Pete Maysmith is executive director of Colorado Conservation Voters. Gene Karpinski is president of the League of Conservation Voters.”

Via Denver Post

…we need a level playing field and we need to go back to the realization that Teddy Roosevelt had: that we have to have a limit on the flow of money and that corporations are not people,

This terribly reported and frankly lazily written article shows that old-dog journalists are not only out of touch with readers, they have utterly lost their way. The story should be about the United States’ first wind turbine testing facility. Here’s a video. Here are photos of the facility’s ribbon cutting, with none other than Deval Patrick (Obama’s friggin reelection campaign co-chair) and other state politicians and leaders.

The facility will save millions of dollars for wind turbine manufacturers in the US. MILLIONS. Like an airplane wing, wind turbine blades have to be stress-tested in wind tunnels. The only viable tunnels for stress testing are in Europe. So, a US manufacturer would have to ship their blades - by boat, then rail - to Denmark or Germany for testing.

This is the first and only wind turbine testing facility in the United States. THAT’S HUGE NEWS!

Read the article - did the above come through? No. But, you do get to hear some random critics’ opinions without the reporter questioning, challenging, researching, or cross-referencing to their claims - or stating their relevance to the story (aka “the other side” - you know, to “balance” the article. Bullshit).

This so-called “balanced reporting” methodology is a trend that started in the ’90s and for cry-eye it has to stop! Report the f&cking story. Stop giving the mic to any Joe-blow opposition to fill requisite space because yrr too darn lazy to dig deep.

I love my home state, but that doesn’t mean I’m obligated to read garbage articles on important issues that affect the entire fucking country’s economy. Manufacturing is down. And this early-home-run project adds to the nation’s upswing (hint: that’s the nut, Globers).

This story demonstrates why I’m increasingly turning to the hotties at Los Angeles Times (great tumblr!), Reuters, Slate, Al Jazeera, and even the stodgy The Hill.

Anyway, read the story below if you can bear it… </rant>


Harnessing the winds of change

- The sprawling Wind Technology Testing Center in Charlestown aims to help the wind industry develop turbines better able to survive blizzards and other tests of nature.

A Rick Perry cartoon of the day. 

Scott Brown (R-MA) thinks the EPA should not regulate GHGs for three reasons:

  • Businesses are complaining about environmental requirements
  • Businesses are complaining about environmental requirements
  • And that businesses are complaining about environmental requirements

He’s up for reelection and has decided to go-all-in with a negative campaign strategy. He’s being outflanked by several competitors. He’s especially vulnerable on the merits of his record.

In an editorial, Brown fires back at an ad run locally by The League of Women Voters. The ad attacks Brown’s vote to defund the EPA.

That ad basically states: The EPA and Brown should “protect children not businesses”

Brown’s response: The EPA “burdens our businesses with even more bureaucracy (and kill jobs)…”

This is a blunder. In light of the above, how can Brown argue that he doesn’t side with business when he plainly states that it was business that motivates his votes!?

Look, Brown can win this argument. He just needs to provide evidence that defunding the EPA would have a net negative effect. He has not done so. I think it’s fair to ask Brown for evidence of his claims. Instead, he announces that his reelection campaign will run negative.

The problem is that Massachusetts is a shrinking state. It’s the 9th oldest in the country. There are a lot of colleges and universities here, but students are not staying. They’re moving west and south. I know engineers at UMass who wanted to start clean energy businesses in this state, but have moved to California because they already have GHG regulations in place. I also know many students looking for green jobs - and finding them - out west. These people are creating jobs in other states, while further shrinking the Commonwealth.

Brown needs to see the long view, beyond the political cycle. Cleaner air equates to healthier, more productive people. Unhealthy people are a drag on economies. Why argue against this? So far, the argument supporting Brown’s editorial is, “I do not like that league of voter women.” This is not an argument. Nor does it come close to approaching the merits.

Study after study show (eg, here) that the costs of environmental regulations are always overstated. And that they have high quality rates of return in terms of healthier people, environment, and economies. Brown is preying on people’s ignorance of these facts and I’m pretty pissed about it. 

Again, Massachusetts is shrinking. It’s lost a congressional seat, and will lose another in the near future. It has the 9th oldest population in the country. Retirees are moving and students are not staying.

Scott Brown is doing nothing innovative, nothing to keep these people here. He’s demonstrably voting with unnamed businesses and colleagues in DC, and he should respond to his constituents or lose his seat.

Source: Boston Herald

UPDATE: The NRDC shreds - I mean completely masticates - Scott Brown’s response, that I discussed above. They write:

How does asthma affect Senator Brown’s state of Massachusetts? According to the nurses’ report, over 130,000 Massachusetts kids have asthma and over 13,000 emergency room visits are needed yearly to treat kids struggling to breathe.

Senator Brown is deluding himself (and misleading his constituents) by claiming that his vote had nothing to do with kids’ health. Our nation’s leading health groups – American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians (to name a few among many) have unequivocally stated that proposals to block the EPA are bad for our health