Ha, just keep 'em watching the bouncing ball

Climate change is happening now and much faster than anticipated.

(Sir Robert Watson, former chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

The Arctic is a principal, global driver of the climate system and is undergoing an unprecedented rate of change with consequences far beyond its boundaries.

(David Grimes, President of World Meteorological Organization)

So the American voter wants change?

Possibly one of the world's largest ice avalanches, which contained some 100 million cubic meters of ice and rock, occurred in western Tibet this past July. Glaciologists are not yet certain why an entire “glacier tongue” would collapse so quickly and violently. The glaciers of Central and South Asia, including Tibet, have the largest reserves of glacier ice outside of Antarctica, Greenland and Canada.

As mentioned previously, an international climate goal is to keep temperature rise under 2 degrees Celsius. The current reality is, however, that the Arctic, which makes up 4 percent of the earth's surface has already risen some 4 degrees Celsius. Climate scientists believe that if we don't take far more serious measures, temperatures will certainly rise to 1.5 degrees C by 2030 and quite conceivably 2 degrees C by 2050.

Yes, stuff could happen—in our lifetime. Permafrost could melt in the tundra (where it used to be cold all the time) releasing more carbon dioxide—and methane—making what we call feedback loops an unpleasant reality. Ocean currents could change and weather patterns might begin to vary a lot, with extreme weather events becoming the new reality.

This time you might want to stop living in flood plains and do not expect the government to bail you out citizen. Massive die offs of plant and animal life could occur, along with water wars, forced migration of millions of people across the globe, famines and no more exotic vacations for the privileged and the wealthy … get the idea?

My fellow Americans, ignorance is not bliss, right here in “River City”

Watching the recent presidential debate, I was surprised by the amount of revulsion I felt toward Donald Trump, in my opinion the most unqualified presidential candidate in modern history, but I do not consider him merely an ignorant, narcissistic carnival barker. History offers far too many examples of seeming buffoons and charlatans seducing the citizenry, taking power and then wreaking havoc.

We are being told by assorted pundits that the demographic group designated “millennials,” some 75 million souls, ages 18 to 34 dislike or are uneasy about voting for Hillary Clinton and she could lose the election if she does not get their support.

If you are a 34 year old millennial right now, in 2050 you will be 68 years old and some of you will presumably have children and grandchildren. If you are 25 years old you will be only 59 in 2050. Donald, Hillary and a great many of us will be long gone 34 years from now.

third party

You forget the Greens and the Libertarians

I'm doing my best to definitely forget about Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, the nominees for the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. It is a wasted protest vote. Jill Stein appears to live in a world of illusion and seems to have little understanding of political reality, how the political system actually works and how people actually make decisions.

Then there is Gary Johnson, a seemingly nice guy who needs to brush up on world events before running for the presidency of the United States. But perhaps even more important in a diverse, continental sized country with more than 300 million people, libertarian, free market claptrap is the last thing we need in a world with climate change, demographic increases, global trade, nuclear weapons and a host of grown up issues requiring collective action.

Wishing is hardly enough

My personal wish list includes such things as universal health care, the repeal of Citizen's United, national gun legislation that reflects a 21^st century world, criminal justice reform, reducing livestock farming (a global warming disaster), free college education, a genuine progressive income tax, intelligent cuts in the bloated defense budget, increasing funding for our national parks (one of the greatest public policy successes in our history), a large scale infrastructure program and above all, an actual commitment to fighting climate change.

I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton without reservation, not because she ignites my passion or guarantees my wish list, but because she is capable of the “change” so many Americans claim that they want. Of course the change comes when we who profess the need for that change actually organize, educate and vote at all levels all the time over the long term.

Finally, there is the definition of what “change” means. I have a pretty good idea of what Donald Trump's most passionate supporters mean by change. 

Climate vs weather: delusion vs illusion

So far we simply have not been prepared to accept the revolutionary implications of our own findings, and even when we do we are reluctant to voice such thoughts openly … many are ultimately choosing to censor their own research.

(Kevin Anderson, Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, Manchester, England)

Destructive children

One number in particular always stands out for me. That number is 0.00004. It represents the time we humans have existed on our planet compared to Earth's total age. Earth is 4.543 billion years old.

Modern humans have been around for approximately 200,000 years. Perhaps 6 or 7 million years ago our distant ancestors, possibly in what is present day Chad, and the chimpanzee separated from our common ancestor Sahelanthropus Tchandensis (see “Remembering uncle sah,” May 7,2013).

Only 92 elements make up ALL of life on this planet. We humans today are quite likely breathing the same air that the dinosaurs breathed 100 million years ago. Scientists believe, in a general sense, that any given species of plant and animal, vertebrate or invertebrate on average lasts around 10 million years. We Homo sapiens (sapiens) are animal vertebrates. How long do you think humankind will manage to hang on? How much misery and destruction to all life are we capable of leaving in our wake?

Brief Explanation of Weather and Climate

The numbers but which ones

The number of importance at the moment for government policy makers and climate scientist is 2 degrees Celsius.

While it may be of more significance politically than scientifically, it is a serious marker that the international community has set as a temperature standard in an attempt to avoid a global warming disaster, which in the worst case scenario could conceivably result in human extinction, possibly sooner than what was previously imagined. The objective is to keep global warming increases under 2 degrees Celsius. (A temperature of 2 degrees Celsius is 35.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

Several years ago the number 400 ppm was well known to policy makers and climate scientists. It represented parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The objective was to keep CO2 emissions in the atmosphere under 400 ppm.

The last monitoring station that crossed the threshold occurred in the Antarctic on May 23 of this year. What happens in Beijing, New York or Paris doesn't stay there. This is the first time in 4 million years that carbon emissions have risen above 400 ppm and remained there.

Since the beginning of the Neolithic era, which began some 10,000 years ago global temperatures fluctuated only about 1 degree Celsius. This is the period when human civilization got underway, beginning with human settlements, agriculture and what we call culture. We are now moving into the unknown. Since the 1800s we have warmed 1 degree Celsius.

All the truth and only the truth so help me....

Kevin Anderson, a respected climate scientist, believes many scientists are indulging in a form of self-censorship; in other words, they are producing reports that are “politically” acceptable, because the reality may be far worse than government policy makers, corporations and the public want to hear at the present time.

The first video clip is a short interview with Anderson at the climate talks in Paris in December 2015 and the second video is a lecture that Anderson gave in September 2015. It is very much about the numbers and the possible consequences.

NEXT: U.S. election, climate change and protest votes

Truth is clearly overrated among our kind (4)

In the end, our society will be defined not only by what we create but by what we refuse to destroy.

(John Sawhill, former president of The Nature Conservancy)

A reflection of ourselves

Our national parks and preserves are located in all regions of the country (Our NationalParks), but they are in need of help. From budget cuts, discussed previously, to climate change this remarkable American creation, which goes back more than 100 years, is under threat in the 21^st century.

Shrinking available water supplies affects ecosystems and species survival. Non-native plants, insects, snakes and reptiles encroach on native plants and animal ecosystems and ultimately can result in extinction. It's estimated that approximately 6,500 non-native species are now intruding on native plants and animals.

Air pollution has no boundaries. Such things as coal plants and automobiles affect both air quality and visibility, which over time poisons plants, fouls water resources and threatens vulnerable species. A warming planet is affecting glaciers in our national parks, fire season is becoming longer and more severe, food production could decrease and eco-patterns may change more quickly and threaten numerous species … including humans.

Because of budget cuts deferred maintenance is increasing rapidly, estimated to be well over $7 billion at the present time. Roads are in disrepair, trails closed, restrooms shut and “out of order” signs appearing everywhere. At the same time, more visitors are arriving at our national parks, an estimated 45 million annually. The difficulty is that more visitors mean more problems requiring better service and upkeep.

Beware of the big bad wolf

You can take your tree hugging, granola eating politically correct, earth worshiping, subaru driving, pony tailed sandals in the winter, wolf loving butt somewhere else!

(A sign near Salmon, Idaho, home of the annual Coyote and Wolf Derby)

In old European superstitions it is believed to be unlucky to say the word “wolf” in the month of December, for you run the risk of being attacked by one. On the other hand, wolves are prominent in Native American mythology and many Indians oppose the hunting of wolves. It is believed by some tribes that wolves are family members and the human spirit comes from wolves.

In general, European-Americans from the very beginning have had a total disregard for wildlife. We have slaughtered and butchered animals with abandon from the moment we set foot on the North American continent. We pretty much have belonged to the school of “dominion over” rather than “stewardship of.”

Even in the late 19^th century there were reports of the day time sky darkening because of the migration of millions of passenger pigeons flying overhead. The bird tasted good and was easy to kill. On September 1, 1914 Martha, the last captive passenger pigeon, died at the Cincinnati Zoo. We rarely know the specific date that a species goes extinct, an extinction we humans caused.

Kill 'em all and then some

Salmon, Idaho holds a four day Coyote and Wolf Derby every year. Salmon is a rural ranching community and in its own way reflects a dark part of an American past that should be in the Museum of Natural History but still exists today in small pockets throughout the country. Keep in mind that the livestock industry “hates” predators of every kind and always has. Science and objective observation have little to do with it.

The object of the hunt is to kill coyotes and wolves as fast as possible. It is killing for the sake of killing. Prizes of $1,000 are awarded for the most animals killed. Special awards are also given to children who demonstrate prowess in this slaughter.

Of particular interest is that part of the hunt takes place on federal lands—meaning public. Supposedly, oversight responsibility rests with the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, who seemingly vanish shortly before and during this cultural celebration of human blood-lust.

The steak tastes bad

Climatologists are telling us with a “high level” of certainty that our warming planet, since 1950 at least, is caused primarily because of what we humans have been doing to the Earth. Yes, it's us.

In terms of global warming, meat production is especially harmful and beef production may be the most damaging form of meat. Cows produce methane emissions, a powerful greenhouse gas. Many methods of cattle production demand large tracts of land, contribute to the destruction of forests and trees are burned releasing CO2. Cattle production more often than not requires huge amounts of water and fertilizer.

If the whole world ate beef at the rate of Americans and produced by methods that are usual in the U.S., we'd likely have little chance of staying below internationally agreed limits on global warming.

So what, why it matters for every one of us, and what can really be done about it?

TO BE CONTINUED

The Ethos of Death

These two articles in particular tell us something about the political reality in America, the cult of death and the on-going land swindle that continues currently. The disease can be cured if we choose.

Wyoming, Montana and Idahoand Killing Grizzly Bears

House Republicans Seek toOpen National Forests to Mining and Logging

THE RIGHTS of NATURE

Truth is clearly overrated among our kind (1)

Orcs hate Elves with a passion.

(from Lord of the Rings by J. R.R. Tolkien)

“Home home on the range, where the deer and the antelope play”

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, Wildlife Services, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has killed, through gassing, poisoning and strangulation by snare, 27 million native animals since 1996, including more than 1 million in 2014. The animals have included prairie dogs, gray wolves, mountain lions, black bears, foxes, coyotes and even bald eagles, and possibly a few domestic cats.

The mission of the USDA APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) Wildlife Services “is to provide Federal leadership and expertise to resolve wildlife conflicts to allow people and wildlife to coexist.” The WS is a government agency, its programs paid for by the taxpayers and supposedly answerable to all the citizens.

Yet most people, including the politicians responsible for oversight, have little understanding of the seemingly secret activities of this agency. What are the causes for each killing? Why is there a large variation from one year to the next? Is it merely a perception of a threat offered up by a farmer or rancher that causes the WS to kill wildlife? What role does corporate agriculture in general have in setting the “killing” priorities ... or, is it merely part of something much more corrupt and ultimately harmful to all of us?

Piling up the cow manure

In 1885 William A.J. Sparks, commissioner of the General Land Office, in his report to Congress, said

that “unscrupulous speculation resulted in the worst forms of land monopoly … throughout regions dominated by cattle-raising interests.” It has been said often enough that it's more than likely that land in the western states was acquired originally by assorted types of fraud.

The swindle, updated for the 21^st century and more efficient, is still a swindle, with the possible consequences far worse today and affecting those that have never seen a real cow.

When a character like Cliven Bundy and his fellow travelers, the very essence of “welfare parasites,” state they will not pay a grazing fee for their cattle, keep in mind that the taxpayers of the United States are providing millions of dollars in indirect subsidies for private land ranchers. The actual federal grazing fee is approximately $1.35 a month per cow-calf pair in 2015, but the market rate on private land averages around $12.00.

One of the more colorful quotations comes from Brian Ertz, chairperson of Sierra Club's National Grazing Team, who said in 2014 in reference to an area on the Idaho-Nevada border: “One of the most cattle-fucked landscapes you'll ever see.”

Actual climate science tells us that one of the main contributors of greenhouse gases comes from meat production. It's also in the realm of possibility that the butchering of wildlife brought to you by the Wildlife Services has been decided by the livestock industry.

Today, desertification, pollution of water, destruction of cover for birds and mammals, mono-culturing of grasslands, deforestation and the destruction of native plants comes to us through poorly regulated grazing. In 1934 in congressional testimony the Forest Service referred to “ cancer-like growth” because of unregulated grazing. More than 70 years later we're still dealing with cancer-like growth and it's not because we don't understand the science today.

In 1946 The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was created, a merger between Grazing Service and the General Land Office. Today it administers more than 247 million acres of public lands, mostly located in the western states. The BLM has sometimes been referred to, with a touch of bitterness, as the Bureau of Livestock and Mines. The question of course is who exactly does the BLM really work for. TO BE CONTINUED

By by ice shelf

Larsen B, Antarctic

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2015/may/15/antarctic-larsen-b-ice-shelf-nasa-video  

Nature is always changing. You environmentalists and your scare tactics. Don't worry, be happy. We'll study it when we have time.

So-called science: Climate change

A bit of levity regarding the minds of climate change deniers, but the ultimate consequences are likely to be anything but amusing. The question is as always how do we go about changing those minds or ignoring them completely?

We crossed the red line and no one noticed

We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now.

(Martin Luther King, April 4, 1967)

The Earth will end when God declares it to be over.

(John Shimkus, Republican congressman, Illinois, chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy))

For the sake of our planet, we need to start eating lower down on the food chain and we need to do it fairly soon.

(David George Gordon, science writer)

A story in need of an ending

In case you haven't heard and most likely many haven't, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of planet Earth has now risen to 400 parts per million. It's been something like 3 million years since so much carbon dioxide has been hanging over the planet.

The “little-bit” of good news is that 400 ppm is part of a scientific model, a very complex model with a lot of complex parts and poorly understood by most people, which is comforting news to many politicians across the globe. Models of course can be changed, modified or discarded. Unlike the politicians, the scientists could be wrong about a lot or a little and, as some people know, science tries hard to be proven wrong.

The actual “good” news is that we have some idea how to mitigate many of the effects of climate change. For example, in terms of things like deforestation, feed production and animal waste, the

livestock industry produces between 18-51 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The industry as well uses a lot of fossil fuels and water.

Could you imagine eating a little less meat? What if you could be persuaded that the future of future generations would quite probably be bleak, unless significant changes were made starting right now? For that matter, the present is feeling a little less certain; we may not need vivid imaginations. For more on this subject see “Additional Reading.”

Genes made me do it—or not

Genetics has come a long way since Gregor Mendel, in the 19^th century, showed how the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants followed particular patterns. Today, with the mapping of the human genome and the ever increasing power of supercomputers, we have arrived at a new scientific Frontier-land. What we do with it is a story searching for a good ending.

I once worked with someone a number of years ago that believed humankind was “d-evolving,” as though the expanding universe showed signs of slowing down and reversing itself. Interestingly, Gerald Crabtree, Professor of Pathology and Developmental Biology at Stamford University, has a fairly controversial view on human intelligence. It's declining, according to Crabtree.

He has said that, “A hunter-gatherer who did not correctly conceive a solution to providing food and shelter probably died, along with his or her progeny, whereas a modern Wall Street executive that made a similar conceptual mistake would receive a substantial bonus and be a more attractive mate.”

Crabtree has suggested that the approximately 5,000 genes, which he believes are the basis for human intelligence, have mutated over the years and modern man is not as intelligent as his ancestors. The professor thinks we may have peaked about 7,000 years ago! At the same time, Crabtree has said that science and technology have allowed us to rise above the “dumbing down.”

Regardless of Professor's Crabtree's thought-provoking ideas, what we know about genes at the present time is quite remarkable. It's not an either or—genetics or environment—it's more like a blending, a mixing and sometimes one is more influential than the other. The answer is frequently that … it depends.

When we're young, environment has a tendency to be more important but when we get older and more independent, genes seem to play a larger role. Certain behaviors, such as criminality, are heritable but only as side effects of genes that affect personality traits. You don't for example have genes for addiction, but you do have genes for impetuosity and risk taking which, under the right environmental circumstances, might lead to addiction.

Neurobiologists have found out that there is a structure in our limbic brain called the amygdala, which causes the feeling of unease. Research has shown that people with larger emotional responses to threats are more likely to have right-wing opinions. There is now a field called Genopolitics, which accepts that political views most likely have a genetic component.

Finally, a little bit of good news to consider. Yes, sex and organisms are healthy, because they release oxytocin, sometimes called the “cuddle hormone.” This particular hormone has the ability to lower amygdala response, which can then increase such traits as generosity and trust. David Buss, a professor of psychology, conducted a “sexual preference study a number of years ago.” He learned that the top two qualities in a mate for both men and women were kindness and intelligence, outweighing things such as money and physical appearance.

Thinking good thought

In summary, how we think, make decisions and frame discussions needs to be understood a lot better. We know now that there is both a genetic and environmental component in decision making, and our survival as a species probably depends on how effectively we can increase the size of who we think belongs in our group. The “clan” is bigger than we think.

Additional Reading:

what to consider

Global carbon dioxide in atmosphere passes milestone level

Bring on the bugs

Would we give up burgers tostop climate change

Entering a resource-shockworld

Frozen Evolution: TheProbability of Extinction

worth reading

How (not) to argue withskeptics and deniers: a historian's guide

Science and Religion Can'tBe Reconciled

Rapid Shifts

Belief in biblical end-timesstifling climate change action in U.S. :study

political hack with a degree in biology

Louisiana counts the cost ofteaching creationism—in reputation and dollars

A future only a mother could love

India's Coal Rush

You gentlemen are making a great mistake. The exchange is a perfect institution.

(Richard Whitney, president of the New York Stock Exchange during the crash of 1929)

I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and gas run out before we tackle that.

(Thomas Edison, in conversation with Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone, 1931)

We want ours

China and India together have more than two billion people, approximately a quarter of the world's population, a fact that ought not to elicit unrestrained optimism for planet Earth and its inhabitants, in spite of the economic “successes” of both countries, especially China.

Of course we can hope that China and India will somehow get it right in the not too distant future, but the pressure to improve life for the millions and the attempt to expand the middle class is likely to only speed up the unsustainable treadmill, as the search across the globe for finite resources becomes even more frenzied and destructive. We probably don't have another 100 years to finally realize we went down the wrong path.

Try to imagine

Curt Stager, paleoclimatologist, has written an interesting book on the theoretical what if. Deep Future: The Next 100,000 Years of Life on Earth asks us to look at the possibilities of what could happen to our planet and ultimately to all life on it. What happens after global warming? is one of the questions Stagner raises. What might we do now to avert the worst possibilities?

What to do

While too much time has already been spent complaining about the climate denialists or corporate misinformation or political corruption or even public ignorance—certainly in the United States—we have not done a lot of thinking about our ability to tell stories effectively. It's the creative narrative that needs to be created.

Yes, as has been said, scientists need to become better storytellers when it comes to science and the public—like it or not. But the rest of us have a part to play. The Occupy movement has taught us that we can change the same old tired narrative and create a compelling new story. It is however not a part-time effort. So what are we willing to do?

What we need to invent … are ways in which farsightedness can become a habit of the citizenry of the diverse peoples of this planet.

(Margaret Mead, Atmospheric Science Conference, North Carolina, 1975)

Additional reading:

Plastics put solar on theverge

Why won't they listen?

Scope, not scale

Monsanto 'Biotechnology Bookfor Kids'

What is the 'best' climate for us?

For the past couple of years or so a number of articles have appeared about how people make decisions and process information. Many of the articles were written because of the seeming inability of a large number of Americans to grasp a basic understanding of climate change, let alone believe it's “real.”

Of course the deliberate misinformation by the fossil fuel industry and its assorted front groups has made it difficult, perhaps starting with a particular White House consultant in the first George Bush administration.

Frank Luntz, the consultant, was quoted in a memo back in 2003 as saying, “A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth.” He was the person that told the Bush administration that they should not use the phrase “global warming.” It would only scare the public and not be helpful to George Bush' presidency Luntz said.
.
The reality has been, however, that scientists, journalists, and environmentalists in general have not done a very good job explaining climate change in a clear, concise manner, thus many of the articles on the manner of “climate” thinking.

A particularly good article published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society covers in some detail how humans make judgments and decisions when contemplating complex and uncertain problems. The paper is divided into (1) sampling, (2) framing, (3)comprehension, and (4) consensus building. The article provides illustrations and suggestions for those individuals responsible for explaining to non-scientists about global warming, climate change, and why it matters a great deal. See The Psychology of Global Warming.

An excellent, just released, presentation entitled “Climate Change Science” and sponsored by the American Chemical Society is well worth watching. The presenters, Michael McElroy, Professor of Environmental Science, James McCarthy, Professor of Biological Oceanography, John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, and Robert Socolow, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering ought not to be missed. It's an audio presentation with accompanying slides.

The presentation is not for the casual observer, but well worth the time of anyone responsible for explaining the complexity of climate change to the public in general—and probably to a great many politicians. Go to
Climate Change Science (Michael McElroy)

James McCarthy

John Christy

Robert Socolow

Forum on Climate Change Science and Consequences (to download material if Flash not available)

Source:

Thirteen municipalities and Kansas City

Photo credit: Molecular Model/jscreationzs/freedigitalphotos.net

What's the target climate

Rob Dunbar, oceanographer and biogeochemist, has been involved in drilling into the sea beds, corals, and ice sheets. He wants to determine real baselines for fixing our current climate.

He points out in his presentation that we have to go back some 15 million years to find CO2 levels equal to what they are today. He also states that even for climate skeptics, there is no denying that the amount of CO2 dissolving in the ocean is leading to an increase in acidification.

Global warming study in Antarctica

Robert Lee Hotz, science columnist for The Wall Street Journal, discusses a global warming study being conducted in Antarctica. The study is analyzing ice more than 15,000 years old. Hotz presents the question that the scientists are asking: What is the exact relationship between levels of greenhouse gases and planetary temperatures? The relationship is extremely important as he points out.

Clean coal and its reality

COAL POWER PLANT: flickr.com/devipt's photostream/Bruno & Ligia Rodrigues

Clean coal is like dry water
(Appalachian Voices)

A friend asked me why I say CCS isn't practical. Answer: it isn't.
(a tweet from Don Blakenship, CEO Massey Energy)

The letter I received this past May from Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri regarding the clean energy and climate change legislation was fairly typical among a portion of the U.S. Senate. While she acknowledged that climate change science is “real,” she then went on to offer a number of caveats about not hurting “Missouri families” while we address the real problem of climate change. Above all, according to the senator, America must invest in clean coal technology, such as carbon capture and sequestration, sometimes referred to as CCS.

Clean coal technology

At the present time there is no such thing as clean coal, in the United States nor anywhere else in the world. We can not “capture” carbon nor do we have the technology at the present time to bury it, in the United States nor anywhere else in the world, certainly on a commercial scale that would be required.

The optimists say we're ten to twenty years away from developing the technology … maybe. The pessimists say we ought to put our effort and our money into something more promising—which is? Meanwhile global warming is increasing, according to the scientists that actually study the issue, because of the burning of fossil fuels.

The U.S. Department of Energy recently released the breakdown of its $3.4 billion stimulus money for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Some $1 billion is to be used for actual development programs. CCS.

Where does reality lead

The question has come up about “shifting liability” from industry to the taxpayer. Obama's Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage has raised the point about industry's reluctance to spend its own money until the question of liability is clearly determined. Companies see big up-front costs associated with the development of carbon sequestration facilities.

The skeptics have said—certainly in reference to the oil and nuclear industry—that if these industries are so safe as is oftentimes claimed, why do they seem to want to invest in insurance, paid for by the taxpayer instead of the industry. The phrase "limit on claims" is one heard often in the oil industry, as well as in the nuclear power industry.

Finally, Don Blakenship, who runs Massey Energy, has stated publicly, more than once, that he doesn't believe in climate change, yet his company is investing a lot of money in CCS research. The truth may yet set us free, maybe.

Some Sources:

Appalachian Voices

CCSReg Project

Coal Tattoo

Global Warming and Growing Data