The Heartland Institute To Pope Francis: Don't Believe the Science of Global Warming

I couldn’t help but feel a twinge of embarrassment when I read about this. Apparently the Heartland Institute, possibly the most rabid of the conservative “think tanks” when it comes to denying the existence of global warming, is sending a contingent of its folks to Rome to, in their eyes, set the pope straight about climate change.

            The American organization sponsors an annual bizarro world version of the UN’s IPCC, in which they bloviate as best they can about conspiracies, money-grubbing climate scientists falsifying data, and imaginary cooling trends. They even call their get together the International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) in the hope, I image, that the initials are close enough to fool people into thinking that they are the same as the UN’s IPCC.

The Heartland folks are on their way to Rome as they anticipate the Pontiff’s upcoming encyclical. The pope is expected to say that, given our present situation, reducing greenhouse gasses has become a moral imperative.

The pope is called upon to be gracious to those who seek his audience, so Pope Francis will meet with the representatives from the Heartland Institute. But they should already know that the pope receives some of the best council when it comes to science. OK, the Church really blew it with Bruno and Galileo, but that was over 300 years ago. Things have changed since then.

            Years ago, when scientists were uncertain if other factors besides CO2 might mitigate the warming effects of our release of greenhouse gasses, the Heartland Institute could gain some traction in the news and opinion pieces. But since that time they have painted themselves into an intellectual corner, and now they are quite stuck.

Pope Francis is expected to say that reducing greenhouse gasses is a moral imperative.

And they are now desperate. Until now global warming has been something scientists studied; it has been an issue for which governments and politicians have made laws and created policies. It has been something that most people ignored, too.

But with this his encyclical, Pope Francis takes global warming into our spiritual realm, a place where the Heartland Institute does not go. The “think tank” can have success with some folks as they sow doubt, and they can have even more success as they lobby Congress and make their large campaign contributions. But the pope, particularly this pope, holds great influence over his Catholic Church, as well as a great deal of the rest of the Christian world. With his upcoming encyclical, climate change becomes part of our spiritual lives, the subject of homilies from the pulpit, and a concern of our prayers. It goes from an abstract thing to something quite human.

In their campaign to keep us from addressing climate change, with this latest development with the pope, the Heartland Institute should know that they no longer have a prayer.

Let the Mines Be Big and Toxic Because Those Hillbillies Just Don't Matter

Jeff Biggers gets it. The author of The United States of Appalachia and Reckoning at Eagle Creek: The Secret Legacy of Coal in the Heartland and a man who grew up around coal mining and its legacy understands the hellishness that surface mining, and particularly mountaintop removal, unleashes on Appalachia. Here in his Guardian opinion piece, Would There Be More Regulation of Coal Mining If It Didn't Just Affect "Hillbillies," he explains that the Appalachian Mountains are ravaged and the streams and ecosystems are ruined because we simply disregard the lives of Appalachians. We think that they are just a bunch of dumb hillbillies who deserve their lot.

            There is obviously more to it than the larger prejudices of the country as a whole. There are the hand-in-gloveworkings of the coal companies and politicians of the region; the infection of school curricula in which students are given propaganda by King Coal to be learned as lessons in their classrooms; there is the endemic poverty that grinds down people’s spirits and keeps them ever distracted worrying about their mounting bills and being trapped in an economic system that gives them as much choice in their lives as their ancestors had in the company towns.

It's just a bunch of hillbillies who live nearby. So who cares?

But Biggers gets the larger picture of how mountaintop removal can be such a low priority, even for people and groups that care about poverty or environmental concerns. You really should read his opinion piece. Here is another link to it right here. And remember, Appalachian lives matter.

Mountaintop Removal, Just Not In the Press and Just Not On Our Minds

I know that this is something that bloggers are loath to admit, but often, particularly when I blog about mountaintop removal mining, the hits I get on this blog can be pretty meager, diving down from dozens or hundreds to only a few hits.

            The reason for this is quite simple. Mountaintop mining is simply not on the minds of most folks. This is due in part at least to the few stories about the mines in the press. In the past 15 years the New York Times ran 40 stories that were about mountaintop removal or mentioned mountaintop removal somewhere in a story.[1] Conversely, over the same period the Times ran 17,158 stories that were about or mentioned Israel.

            Certainly there is much that goes on in Israel that is newsworthy, and on the occasions when there are missiles flying or bombs going off there will be a lot of press coverage of that area of the world. But a scourge on the land and people of Appalachia—one that is occurring within our borders, one that has been investigated by the U.N. for human rights abuses, one which, unlike the politics or conflicts of a country thousands of miles away, we can actually do something about—why does it receive less than 0.3 percent of the coverage of that given to Israel?

            Because of the dearth of press coverage, we just aren’t curious about mountaintop removal and don’t try to find out more about it. Below is a graph showing the searches in Google[2] for mountaintop removal over the last ten years. The graph doesn’t give absolute numbers, but you’ll get my point in the next few graphs. You can see from the graph that interest in mountaintop coal mining peaked around 2010.

 

Goolging of mountaintop removal since 2005

Now take a look at the graph below. It shows the googling of mountaintop removal compared to the googling of fracking. The blue line is the one representing mountaintop removal and the red one is the fracking one. If you think about it, fracking has been in the headlines a lot more than MTR mining. Maybe this can be explained by more compelling and appealing documentaries about fracking. Perhaps the press covers the extractive practice more because more communities are affected by hydraulic fracturing than that of mountaintop removal.

 

Googling of mountaintop removal and fracking since 2005

OK, here’s the kicker. Below is a graph of the googling done on mountaintop removal, fracking, and Taylor Swift, the very popular singer. The line representing her Google searches is the dashed yellow one.

 

Googling of mountaintop removal, fracking, and Taylor Swift since 2005

Wow. The searches on fracking barely resister compared to the ones on Swift, and unless I knew that mountaintop removal was graphed, I would not know it was there.

            I don’t mean to take away from Taylor Swift and her popularity. She brings a great deal of joy to millions. I would like to see peace for the Middle East, and perhaps the press coverage of the region will help bring that about. The same can be said about fracking, that the press coverage and interest in the subject will help us to stop or severely restrict this dangerous extractive practice. But why such miniscule press coverage of the mines that are devastating our Appalachia? Why?

And here's a picture of Taylor Swift, just for good measure. photo: Jason Merritt/Getty Images 

---

[1] This search in the Times and other searches were performed using Proquest.

[2] These graphs were generated in Google Trends https://www.google.com/trends/

Thank You, Mr. President

Three cheers for President Obama for this address. He took this opportunity in his weekly address, the week of Earth Day, to say that climate change is our greatest threat, which it is.

            I would have been happier had he said these things on the occasion of his first Earth Day in office; and I would have been happier had he gone further than touting more efficient cars and solar energy and said that we need to transform large sectors of our society and much of the way we live in order to keep the planet from heating up like an oven. Even still, thank you, Mr. President, for addressing global warming in you weekly address.

Mountaintop Removal Linked to Health Hazards Again

It’s been pretty well established that mountaintop removal is bad for the health of the folks who live around the mines. Mountaintop mining kicks up a lot of dust, and many of the ailments that afflict those who live close to the mines is directly related to inhaling coal dust or silica associated with the mines.

            Well, it turns out that recent research indicates that the ultrafine dust from the mines can make people sick, too. This is dust so small that you cannot see it. It is so small that it can pass through the incredibly small holes in the cell walls of living tissue. Once the dust enters the cell through the cell wall, inflammation occurs, and inflammation can lead to a number of ailments.

            Lab research backs this up. In one case, rats exposed to dust composed of titanium oxide, the white pigment in paint, suffered no ill effect. If the titanium oxide dust was very, very small, the rats died.

This mine can make you very sick.

If these particles are so small they can pass through the pores of cells, they are too small to be stopped by dust masks or other prophylactic devices. On the other hand, getting rid of these ultrafine dust particles in Appalachia is pretty simple. End mountaintop removal.

Keeping West Virginia's Children Ignorant About Climate Change

Once again West Virginia Board of Education is trying to weaken the science standards when it comes to global warming.

This started in December of last year, when board member Wade Linger, who has said that, “[w]e need to look at all the theories about [climate change] rather than just the human changes in greenhouse gases,” and that he doesn’t believe that global warming is a “foregone conclusion,” had language inserted in the state’s science standards that portrayed climate change as something that is doubtful and debatable. His suggestion, that “and fall” followed the word “rise” in the sixth grade science standard, was adopted. Other changes included the following:

Original ninth grade science requirement: “Analyze geoscience data and the results from global climate models to make an evidence-based forecast of the current rate of global or regional climate change and associated future impacts to Earth systems.”

Adopted version: “Analyze geoscience data and the predictions made by computer climate models to assess their creditability [sic] for predicting future impacts on the Earth System.”

Original high school elective Environmental Science requirement: “Debate climate changes as it [sic] relates to greenhouse gases, human changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and relevant laws and treaties.”

Adopted version: “Debate climate changes as it relates to natural forces such as Milankovitch cycles, greenhouse gases, human changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and relevant laws and treaties.”

Other Board of Education members also expressed views that were skeptical about the reality of global warming. After the Charleston Gazette reported on the adopted changes, however, scientists, West Virginia residents, and educational and environmental activists pressured the Board of Education to correct the standards to be more in line with the accepted science on the subject. Linger’s changes to the standards were withdrawn. That was back in January.

            While not a word-for-word revamp of his original science standards changes, Linger’s latest move is very similar to the ones he proposed last December. We will see what sort of backlash this latest move generates.

            Members of the West Virginia Board of Education might simply be avid listeners to Rush Limbaugh and other AM radio folks who deny global warming. Or these changes to the curricula might be due to pressure from King Coal. The coal industry already has a big influence on the curricula of eastern Kentucky schools with their Coal Energy and Resource (CEDAR) program. This video below gives an idea of what CEDAR is all about. Watch it and try to tell me it is not indoctrination:

Those tons and tons of coal that are mined in Appalachia turn into tons and tons of CO2 when they are burned in power plants and factories. The coal industry knows this. They know that children who fully grasp this connection will not likely be supporters of their industry when they grow up. So it’s best to keep them in the dark on what the science says about coal and a warming world.

Appalachian Lives Matter

It is probably obvious that I care deeply about the things I write about in this blog. I love the mountains and the people of Appalachia where I grew up, the wonderful creatures that we share this world with, and the environment in general.

            Although these things are important to me, as I sit and write about them at my computer, these topics can become a little abstract for me. I’ll blog about the mines in Appalachia, but I’m thousands of miles away from them. I don’t wake up with coal dust on my windowsill, and I don’t see the yellow sulfur stains that the mining brings to streams and rivers.

            From the fieldwork that I’ve done, testing the water quality at the estuarial waters of the San Diego River, I’ve actually seen the salinity of the water increase over the last decade, evidence of rising seas and a warming world. Despite the concrete evidence, the numbers rising over time and the graphs inching upwards, I don’t perceive the world as being warmer than I remember it ten or fifteen years ago. I just don’t. Global warming remains a terrible abstraction for me.

That abstractness about the environment changed today. A Facebook friend sent the above video along to me. It’s a portion of a new film called Dear President Obama Americans Against Fracking in One Voice. The man who is talking about his work in fracking, his mishap, and his subsequent cancer diagnosis is Sal Bombardiere. I went to high school with Sal. He was a friend of mine. It is heartbreaking to see a man, any man, so sick and so broken. But I know this man. I remember Sal as a fun guy, a jokester. Somebody you certainly wanted as your friend.

            Although I’ve written critically about hydraulic fracturing (here) and (here), I have not read great deal on the topic; so I have been trying to keep an open mind. I’ve talked to folks in the industry, and they have been quite convincing when they have explained the safety of the extraction process.

            That has changed today. I don’t know how anyone can watch Sal in this video and dismiss the concerns of those worried about fracking operations close to or in their communities.

            Where I was suspicious, I am now angry. Chris Hedges, the journalist, author, and activist, in his recent book with cartoonist Joe Sacco, Days of Destruction Days of Revolt, has called Appalachia an economic sacrifice zone. Along with the economy, Hedges can add the sacrifice of human lives. Maybe it’s time for people to start saying and repeating another simple phrase: Appalachian lives matter.