Alec Rawls Leaks IPCC Report: But How Did He Get the Document in the First Place?

There is a bit of a twitter, figuratively and literally, about a leak of a draft report of the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The final report is due out next year, but this draft was leaked yesterday.

The leaker is a man named Alec Rawls, who is the son of the prominent American philosopher John Rawls. The way he got a hold of the document was to sign up to be one of the 800 expert reviewers of the document.

To be an expert reviewer for an IPCC report, don’t you have to be an expert? How was Rawls vetted to be one of the select persons entrusted to work on this report? As far as I can tell, he isn’t a scientist or someone who has worked on climate issues. On his Linkedin account he says of himself that he is an “Independent Writing and Editing Professional.” (The bit of writer and editor in me wants to correct this to “Independent Writer and Editor,” but that’s another matter.)

            He also lists himself as being self-employed at Rawls Industries, which he says he has owned for over 57 years. If his photo is any indication of his age, he’s had his nose to the grindstone since he was in diapers. I didn’t look long in Google, but I found no trace of a company named Rawls Industries that has been in business for over 50 years.

            He wrote a book, Crescent of Betrayal, that is, well, a little loony. I haven’t read the book, but the summary on Amazon indicates that it is about the memorial in Pennsylvania for the persons who died on flight 93 in September of 2001 and describes the book as showing “how every major element of the proposed ‘Crescent of Embrace’ memorial design is in fact a typical mosque feature, built on an epic scale.” I imagine that I’ll get around to reading it while Elvis flies me around area 51 in a black helicopter.

            As many are pointing out, Rawls, as well as others on the attack the climate science bandwagon, is pinning his hopes of bringing down climate science, or at least the IPCC, on a single sentence that might be construed as implying a greater contribution to global warming from solar flares. The science of climate change and the work of the IPCC stand on their own, and I don’t need to go into that here and now.

            But holy guacamole! Before you’re allowed on a prestigious panel to review a very important document, shouldn’t somebody at least take a look at your Linkedin account and figure out whether or not you have any qualifications to review drafts? Maybe check to see if you have any degrees? See if you’ve ever done any work that would qualify you as somebody competent to work on the IPCC’s report? Maybe just a brief check to see that you haven’t written an entire book that should be shelved in the fantasy section of the library?

Love Pasta? Love Skiing? Become an Environmentalist

The amount of concern over global warming, at least as far as it goes for the countries around the world, has been divided along geographic and economic lines. Countries that are islands or whose boundaries are dominated by low-lying coastal plains—and who are already seeing the effects of rising tides—are most certainly concerned. Wealthy countries who have the resources for adaptations are less concerned about the consequences of climate change than are countries that are poor. Bangladesh, the Netherlands, and the Maldives are freaked out by global warming; Russia, Canada, and the US not so much.

            Reading the accounts of climate negotiations, those are the things that have been dominating the headlines. And there are the headlines that reflect the concerns of scientists and environmentalists: the loss of wetlands, water availability, increased numbers of wildfires, and other environmental calamities.

            Just recently, I’ve noticed a few different sorts of stories about global warming, the concerns that industries and individuals have over how a warming planet will affect their livelihoods and pastimes. Farmers are now figuring out that rising temperatures can affect their crops. As wheat is the one grain that is quite sensitive to higher temperatures, wheat farmers, as well as the folks who make bread and pasta, are anticipating a drop of about 25% in yield of their crop.

            Their current strategy is adaptation. Agronomists are developing and farmers are testing wheat strains that can handle hotter and drier temperatures. I guess that is their smartest move. It is probably easier to pay a few scientists their salaries and perform some trial runs of crops than it is to lobby Congress and other governing bodies for a carbon tax and other climate legislation.

            Folks who ski have noticed that ski seasons are shorter and there is in general less snow on the slopes than their used to be. These skiers and others who enjoy winter sports are lobbying Congress and putting the ski industry on notice that they need to be more involved in keeping the planet cool. Interestingly, just as the oil and coal industries have lobbied and done what they could to keep climate change legislation off the agenda, corporations who have a financial interest in seeing the ski industry thrive, such as The North Face and Patagonia, are sponsoring the efforts of the ski organization.

            Maybe we can think of the ski slope operators and wheat farmers as the poor coastal countries of the economy, the ones who are the first to feel the pains of a warming world. As weather patterns change and the world becomes for the most part hotter and drier, other crops besides wheat will be affected. Orchards may produce fewer apples, and we may not get as many grapes from vineyards that have produced grapes for generations. Other folks besides skiers and ski slope operators could see their pastimes and livelihoods melt away.

As the term is global warming, it’s hard to think of anyone who isn’t going to be affected by a warmer planet. As with the farmers and skiers, however, they only took action once they saw how climate change had already affected their crops and slopes. I guess that explains why so few others are ready and willing to take action. Though we are cognizant of the skiers and wheat farmers, we don’t see how climate change affects us just yet. We are like coal miners who see the canaries getting sick and dying, but we just figure that it’s the birds’ problem and go on digging ourselves deeper into the mine.

Forget the Fiscal Cliff. We Are Approaching a Climate Cliff

At a time when we have the knowledge and ability to curb greenhouse gas emissions, this is more bad news. It seems that, instead of taking note of the evidence and heeding the warnings from scientists, we have been pumping ever more CO2 into the atmosphere.

            To no great credit of our own, the greenhouse gas emissions of the United States dropped by two percent. This is not so much because we are building windmills and installing solar panels on our rooftops, but more because the recession is still strangling the economy. Unemployed folks are not commuting to jobs; fewer products being built and shipped; construction of houses and buildings has been curtailed. All these things create carbon dioxide.

            But while we have been stuck in a recession other countries like India and China are growing richer. They are increasing industrial production, and more and more of their citizens are doing things that Americans take for granted—buying lots of stuff, eating more meat, and driving cars—that increase global warming. China’s output of greenhouse gasses is up by ten percent.

            We are now making more than 1,200 tons of greenhouse gasses every second. It is almost a certainty that the target of keeping global warming to two degrees centigrade will be impossible. It runs against my gut feelings of how to work with this problem, because it is treating the symptom of the disease rather than the causes, but we really have to start working on geoengineering projects. I don’t believe we have any other choice right now.

Cell Phones and Tumors: The Science Becomes Clearer

Perhaps this story didn’t make it into the American news because we were distracted by the columns and columns of newsprint and the hours and hours of television time devoted to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama running for President. And to tell the truth, I’m surprised I ran across it now.

            Back in October an Italian court ruled that a businessman’s brain tumor was caused by his extensive use of cell phones. The man, Innocenzo Marcolini, developed the tumor after long and intense use. He used a cell phone for five to six hours a day for 12 years. The tumor developed on the left side of his head. He usually held the phones in his left hand while he took notes with his right.

            Now, granted that Marcolini’s use of a cell phone was extreme, the rest of us should take caution. Most commonly we hear that the science connecting the use of cell phones and brain tumors is inconclusive. The Reuters article where I got this story even repeats the meme. The court in Italy ruled, however, that the scientific evidence supported the claim of Marcolini, that his tumor was caused by the cell phones.

            Indeed, the reason that the science is inconclusive may be for the same reason that for years the science connecting cigarettes and lung cancer was inconclusive, because industry made the science inconclusive. For years companies like Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds sponsored “science” that showed inconclusive connections between their products and heart disease, cancer, and other ailments. Cell phone companies are just following in their footsteps. This study[i] recently published in Open Environmental Sciences analyzed the scientific studies performed on cell phones. The study determined that industry sponsored studies found inconclusive or weak evidence linking cell phones and brain tumors, while independent studies linked tumors and cell phone use.

            As far as tobacco goes, it is just today, decades after the science should have been concluded and accepted about the dangers of smoking, that a judge has ordered the large tobacco companies to admit that they lied about their products. Let’s hope it doesn’t take as long to achieve clarity about cell phones and their hazards.

---

[i] Spiridione Garbisa, et al. "Mobile Phones And Head Tumours: A Critical Analysis Of Case-Control Epidemiological Studies." Open Environmental Sciences 6.(2012): 1-12. Environment Complete. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.

Are Folks Being NIMBYs When They Say To Keep the Fracking Out of Their Town?

One of the things that I’ve heard from those inside the environmental movement is that progress on the environmental front at the federal level is not promising. With gridlock the status quo in Congress and GOP lead opposition to environmental regulation, any environmental success in Washington would be long fought and quite possibly fruitless.

            Those in the environmental movement have encouraged folks to work on the state and local levels, where people can more directly take charge of their lives and the environment around them. That’s what makes this story out of Colorado so intriguing. Not wanting fracking type gas drilling to disturb their parks, schools, and neighborhoods, the residents of Longmont Colorado banned fracking in their town.

Now it looks like they are in for a plethora of lawsuits challenging their right to restrict the controversial extraction process. The state of Colorado says that it, not local governments, has the right to regulate drilling. The energy companies claim that the ban infringes on their property rights.

Certainly local municipalities cannot enact laws that run counter to state and federal laws. No matter how many crack addicts live in a town, they cannot make cocaine legal in opposition to state and federal statutes. On the other hand, people in a community should have the right to live in a town that is unmolested by the presence of large-scale drilling, especially considering the health concerns that have been associated with fracking.

Patriot Coal Announces They Are Ending Mountaintop Removal

This news is a wonderful surprise. Patriot Coal announced today that they are ending their practice of mountaintop removal. The coal mining company said that its decision came as part of their agreement over a water pollution lawsuit with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, the Sierra Club, and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy.

Patriot Coal is to be applauded. Credit is due as well to the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and other organizations that have been working with legislators, state agencies, and the courts to ensure that the remaining mountains of Appalachia continue to stand; the waters of those mountains run clean and clear; and the residents of the eastern coalfields can live lives unharmed by the ailments associated with mountaintop removal.

            Mountaintop removal by Patriot Coal is not ending today. The company will be phasing out mountaintop mining production over the next three to four years. But all things considered, the news is still good.

Robert Murray Has a Tantrum Over Obama's Election and 156 People Lose Their Jobs

Following through as he had threatened to do earlier, Robert E. Murray has laid off 156 employees of his mining company, Murray Energy. Other business people have made similar threats concerning Obama’s reelection. I only know of this one instance with Murray Energy in which those threats have been made real.

On this Fox Business show, in a rather besieged tone, Murray said that he anticipates reduced economic activity and reduced power use, although current trends indicate an expanding economy with greater energy use. He went on to call the president a liar and “unfit to guide this country.”

            As I have blogged before, coal is in decline, but not because of Barack Obama. The market for coal has been diminished by falling gas prices. As well, in Appalachia, most of the easily mined (and therefore cheap) coal has already been shipped off to power plants. Whoever occupies the Oval Office cannot change these two facts. Murray is correct in asserting that Romney would most likely loosen restrictions on coal mining, as was done by George W. Bush. Presently, however, a change in regulations would have little effect on the coal market or the ability of the mining companies to extract coal.

If anything, this is purely a political temper tantrum, and one that has real people hurting. As the folks who got laid off point out, nothing has changed in the last few days, besides the election, that would have any bearing on the ability of Murray Energy to dig up coal and sell it. There is no real economic reason for the layoffs. It is merely headline grabbing political theatre.

Murray has demonstrated before that he is not above using his employees for political purposes. Earlier this year he required miners at one of his mines to attend a Romney rally, an event for which they were not paid. Murray Energy also pressured employees to donate to their GOP supporting political action committee, with the company tracking who was and who was not giving money to the PAC.

Because the workers were “at will” employees, the layoffs seem to be legal. I have a hard time with this. An America that is supposed to honor the people who work to put food on their tables and care for their children should not allow those people to lose their jobs because the CEO of their company decides to have a post election hissy fit.