Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

August 17 2012


Just 2% of Canadians Deny Climate Change Occurring, Poll Finds

Originally published on EnergyBoom.com

A recent survey conducted by Insightrix Research, Inc. has found that only 2% of Canadians believe climate change is not taking place.

The online poll, commissioned by IPAC CO2 Research Inc., a Saskatchewan-based center studying carbon capture and storage, asked respondents where they stood on the issue of climate change.

32% of participants said they believe climate change is occurring as a result of human activity, and 54% said they believe climate change is happening because of a combination of human activity and natural variation.  Meanwhile, 9% believe climate change is the result of the natural climate cycle.  Far in the minority were respondents (2%) that believed climate change is a hoax.

Conversely, in the United States climate denial represents a much larger chunk of the population, as a recent survey shows. 15% of Americans believe climate change is not occurring.

Much like the United States, Canadians' opinions on climate change vary depending on the region.  The Insightrix survey found that residents in the Prairies (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba) are least likely to believe humans are changing the climate, while those living in the Maritimes, Quebec, and British Columbia are most likely to hold the belief. 

Almost half (44%) of respondents in Quebec believe anthropogenic climate change is happening, while only 21% of participants in Alberta and Saskatchewan hold the same belief.

This regional divide also exists in regard to fossil fuel consumption.  66% of Albertan respondents believe fossil fuels will be used for electricity production in 2050, while only 37% of Quebecers held the same belief.  Across the country, 51% of Canadians believe fossil fuels will still be used for electricity in 2050.

Carmen Dybwad, CEO of IPAC CO2 Research, said:  "Our survey indicates Canadians from coast to coast overwhelmingly believe climate change is real and is occurring, at least in part due to human activity."

Image credit: ItzaFineDay via Flickr

February 09 2011


Upton's Show Trial To Attack EPA Carbon Controls Set For Wednesday Morning

Remember reading about those Soviet-era show trials where politics and everything BUT the facts were actually discussed? Well on February 9th, the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobil are paying for a show trial of their own.

On Wednesday at 9:30 am, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power will hold a hearing to examine legislation (see memo [pdf])aiming to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from curbing global warming pollution from stationary sources (power plants, factories, etc.). The bill “HR __, The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011” was proposed last week by self-anointed “manmade climate change” skeptic (see video below) and Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), with the help of Subcommittee Chair Ed Whitfield (R-KY) and well-known climate skeptic Senator James Inhofe (R-OK).

The Centre for American Progress Action Fund (CAP) has a brilliant backgrounder [pdf] on the hearing describing how polluter friendly support in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, primarily on the Republican side, has been paid for by Koch Industries and their partners in polluting the planet. CAP shows that during the 2010 election cycle, the Kochs and their employees gave $279,500 to 22 Republicans on the Committee and $32,000 to five of its Democrats.
Upton himself received $20,000 and representatives for the Kochs met with the new Committee Chairman on the first day of the new congress to discuss the EPA’s use of clean air rules to control carbon emissions. As well, Whitfield received $5,000 from Koch Industries during the last election, and Inhofe $40,000 between the 2007-08 election cycle.

More highlights, or lowlights noted in the CAP backgrounder include:

Nine of the 12 new Republicans on the panel signed the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity “No Climate Tax” pledge that opposed any government action to reduce carbon dioxide pollution.

Koch front-group Americans for Prosperity spent over $200,000 on ads to help key Energy and Commerce Committee members in the 2010 elections. Five of the six GOP freshman lawmakers on the panel benefited from the group’s separate advertising and grassroots activity during the 2010 campaign.

Up for “debate” in this mock trial, is the EPA’s ability to use the Clean Air Act to control carbon emissions, which is based on the scientific grounding that global warming poses significant threats to public health. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) released a memo [pdf] supporting the EPA’s efforts to safeguard public health and rightly criticized Upton’s misguided polluter friendly (and funded) bill:

“Legislatively repealing the scientific determination directly conflicts with the consensus of climate scientists and the world's most authoritative scientific organizations.”

While this will be EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s first chance to defend the EPA’s carbon rules in front of the new House Republican majority, it won't help that the meeting is a who’s who of Koch and Exxon funded politicians and fossil fuel cheerleaders who will pay tribute to the Upton bill.

Climate Progress notes that, “The committee is stacking the witness stand with big polluters and their allies.” Indeed, witnesses include:

•    National Black Chamber of Commerce president Harry Alford has received $425,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
•    Margo Thorning is the vice president and chief economist for the American Council for Capital Formation, or ACCF. ACCF has received $215,000 from Koch foundations and nearly $1.7 million from ExxonMobil.
•    Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s 2010 campaign was heavily funded by some of Texas’s largest industries, with most coming from people connected to oil and gas interest. A vocal climate-denier, Abbott sued the Obama administration to end an offshore oil-drilling moratorium instituted following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and has taken the federal EPA to court three times in the past year.
•    Lonnie Carter is president of Santee Cooper, the largest single mercury polluter in South Carolina.
•    Steve Cousins is vice president of Lion Oil, which ranks 27 on the list of top 100facilities releasing chemicals such as nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and benzene into the environment.
•    Peter Glaser of Troutman Sanders LLP works with the Washington Legal Foundation, which has received $325,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
•    Fred Harnack represents the U.S. Steel Corporation, which ranks 19th on the 2010 Political Economy Research Institute Toxic 100 Air Polluters list.
•    James Pearce is the environmental general manager for FMC Corp., which had to pay the largest civil penalty ever obtained under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for repeatedly violating the hazardous waste law at its phosphorus production facility in Pocatello, Idaho.
•    Steve Rowlan is the environmental general manager at Nucor Corp., which is 24 on the 2010 Political Economy Research Institute Toxic 100 Air Polluters list.
•    Self-proclaimed “climate-denier-in-chief” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and one of the draft legislation sponsors, will also testify at the hearing.
•    Illinois Farm Bureau president Phillip Nelson has a history of attacking air and water safeguards, while supporting big polluting mega-farms.

Climate Progress also notes that EPA’s pollution controls have prevented “205,000 premature deaths, 843,000 asthma attacks, and 18 million child respiratory illnesses” and that today the Clean Air Act delivers economic benefits on the scale of 20-to-1 [pdf] – yet Koch and Exxon allies in Congress are more likely to have the wishes of their campaign funders on their minds.

Witness Upton's new-found climate denial:

January 15 2010


Antarctica is Losing Ice Quickly, Melting Away Another Climate Skeptic Myth

Two popular climate skeptic "facts" which are claimed to disprove anthropogenic global warming are:

1.  Surface ice melting on Antarctica is decreasing.

2.  Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing.

Despite what climate skeptics assert, neither of these arguments disprove global warming.  Actually, they highlight quite the contrary:  Antarctica is in fact losing mass (ice).  Even more, ice is melting and breaking away from the continent at an incredibly accelerating rate. 

This isn't opinion, there is data to prove it.


A recent article published by NASA thoroughly explains why these arguments are misleading.  The article also offers multiple streams of scientific data to show how alarming the rate of glacial retreat on Antarctica is.

Data from NASA's Grace satellite shows that Antarctica is losing 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year.  More alarming, still, is the increase in the rate of disintegration.  The article points out that ice can flow without melting, which illuminates how moot the skeptics' first argument is, as well as clarifying the reason behind their second claim.

The majority of the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is occurring in Western Antarctica.  Western Antarctica is a series of islands covered by ice, which NASA describes as a "frozen Hawai'i."  According to data accumulated by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Western Antarctica's largest ice stream, the Pine Island Glacier is retreating.  This year a British scientific group not only verified NASA's data, but also showed that the retreat of the Pine Island Glacier quadrupled between 1995 and 2006.  If this glacier melts, scientists estimate it would raise sea levels by 1.6 to 2.3 feet.

A major reason for the accelerating retreat of Western Antarctica's glaciers is the warming of the sea water surrounding Antarctica.  Warm water is highly problematic for ice shelves.  Ice shelves are the portion of a glacier that extends beyond land mass and out into the water.  As a result, their intrinsic icy structures are highly vulnerable to warm water--problem number one. 

Problem number two:  ice shelves act as a buffer wall which slows the flow of ice toward the water.  So, eliminating a glacier's ice shelve is like removing the door from an over-stuffed closet--most of the contents spill out.  In the case of Western Antarctica this is a very scary prospect considering if the ice covering Western Antarctica melted, it would raise sea levels 16 to 23 feet.  Later this year, NASA will undertake an expedition to rigourously test if Antarctica's warmer water is undermining its ice shelves.

But, don't worry, "sea ice around Antarctica is growing," exclaim climate skeptics.

Yes, because it is spilling forth from the mainland.

The growth of ice surrounding Antarctica reflects a scary global warming trend since it is a result of the Antarctic ice sheet losing mass.  And, as Isabella Velicogna of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine, says, "The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time."


Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.
No Soup for you

Don't be the product, buy the product!

YES, I want to SOUP ●UP for ...