- ► 2016 (105)
- ► 2015 (327)
- Posts from April 2014
- Harvard Students Blockade President’s Office Build...
- Trenberth on El Nino: The only question is, How bi...
- Chris Mooney: Will Global Warming Produce More Tor...
- EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, Remarks at the Na...
- Peter Sinclair: Making the Plio Scene – What the P...
- Neven: More on Melt Ponds [on the Arctic sea ice]
- A rising tide: the case against Canada as a world ...
- Tony Abbott's govt review of Australia's renewable...
- Katharine Hayhoe, climatologist, named one of Time...
- Wave goodbye to Judith Curry's stadium wave - glob...
- 538: Do April Showers Bring May Flowers?
- Unity College president Stephen Mulkey discusses c...
- More institutional investors consider divesting fr...
- March Was 4th Warmest on Record Globally
- Is a Powerful El Niño Brewing in the Pacific Ocean...
- Koch brothers, big utilities attack solar, green e...
- 1975 Newsweek article on global cooling still comi...
- Shall we call the next super El Nino "El Pillo" ?
- US Produce Prices to Rise on Extreme CA Drought
- Solar's insane price drop may cause energy price d...
- NOAA's latest animation of Equatorial Temperature ...
- "Climate Change War" is not a metaphor: Navy Rear ...
- Record drought adds to Syrians' misery
- Steve Horn: "Russia with Love": Alaska Gas Scandal...
- Unexpected Teleconnections in Noctilucent Clouds
- John Abraham: Keystone XL cops – incompetent at al...
- California Drought/Polar Vortex Jet Stream Pattern...
- "Sustained mass loss of the northeast Greenland ic...
- Greenland’s icecap loses stability
- Tom Tomorrow: The Mysterious Disappearance
- rjs: fracking related news for April 14, 2014
- Observed evolution of the 1997-1998 El Nino event
- Dana Nuccitelli: Climate imbalance – disparity in ...
- More protests against Peabody Coal by WashU studen...
- Desmond Tutu: We need an apartheid-style fossil-fu...
- Wen Stephenson: Harvard Fossil Fuel Divestment Sm...
- Harvard University faculty call for divestment fro...
- The Brutally Dishonest Attacks On Showtime’s Landm...
- 3rd editor resigns from Frontiers journals over re...
- Recursive Fury: Resigning from Frontiers, by Bjorn...
- Eli Rabett: The Mysterious Mr. Revkin
- Björn Brembs Resigns Editorship At Frontiers Journ...
- Why We’re Sitting In at WashU (and We’re Not Leavi...
- Chief specialty editor resigns from Frontiers in w...
- Waving goodbye to Judith Curry's Stadium Wave Mode...
- Ugo Bardi: Climate of intimidation: "Frontiers" bl...
- John Abraham: Years of Living Dangerously – a glob...
- More than 100 scientists and economists call for r...
- A Conspiracy And Dunces? Journal Frontiers Tosses ...
- Stephan Lewandowsky: Revisiting a Retraction
- Can Generation Hot Avoid Its Fate?
- Hot Whopper: Ignoble cause: Anthony Watts tells a ...
- Ars Technica: Climate deniers cause Frontiers in P...
- Climate Code Red: Too hot to handle: life in a fou...
- Alarming new study makes today’s climate change mo...
- Coal is destroying southern Illinois
- Peabody Coal Is The Eco-Terrorist, Not People Tryi...
- General Ron Keys Joins the Center for Climate and ...
- NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake and Edward Snowden ...
- Warming Temperatures Could Dry Out One Third of Pl...
- John Abraham: Earth has a fever, but the heat is s...
- Mitigate climate change as quickly as possible or ...
- Steve Horn: "Our Energy Moment": The Blue Engine B...
- NOAA Arctic Sea Ice Report of April 2, 2014
- U.N. court rules Antarctic whaling by Japan illega...
- Denier-created myth of "a new ice age is coming" m...
- Tom Philpott, MoJo: California farmers drill for w...
- NYT: The Aliens Have Landed [not an April Fools ar...
- SMH: 'Conspiracist' climate change study withdrawn...
- The journal that gave in to climate deniers' intim...
- NASA: Arctic Melt Season Lengthening 5 days per de...
- Another one bites the dust, and another one gone.....
- Seth Borenstein, AP: Global warming dials up our r...
- IPCC: Wolf! Wolf! No, Really, Wolf! [not an April ...
- World news from the Daily Climate
- March 2014 posts
- ▼ April (77)
- ► 2013 (1259)
- ► 2012 (1040)
- ► 2011 (2089)
- ► 2010 (1317)
- ► 2009 (1326)
- ► 2008 (510)
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Harvard Students Blockade President’s Office Building in Effort to Win Public Meeting on Fossil Fuel Divestment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, April 30th, 2014
After two-year campaign, student activists escalate tactics as Harvard administration continues refusing to engage in open, transparent dialogue
CAMBRIDGE-- morning, six student activists with the Divest Harvard campaign began a blockade of the main entrance to Harvard University President Drew Faust’s office in Harvard Yard. The students are calling for an open meeting about fossil fuel divestment with the Harvard Corporation after having been denied a public meeting with the administration since Fall 2013.
The Divest Harvard campaign, supported by 350.org and Better Future Project, is part of a global movement with over 400 campuses calling for endowments to divest from the top 200 publicly traded oil, coal, and gas companies that own the majority of the world’s carbon reserves. The fossil fuel divestment movements aims to stigmatize and decrease the influence of fossil fuel companies responsible for the climate crisis, thereby opening the door for political action.
A broad swath of the Harvard community has been calling for fossil fuel divestment for over two years, including a 72% vote of support during student government elections and the recent publication of a strongly-worded letter from over 100 faculty. However, the administration has repeatedly refused requests for open debate on divestment, holding meetings with trustees behind closed doors and making public statements that dismiss student concerns about the dangerous political influence of fossil fuel corporations.
“The University’s failure to respond to demands for an open discussion of its investments in fossil fuels shows a lack of respect for student opinion,” said Brett Roche, undergraduate and blockade participant. “If a Harvard education is truly meant to liberate students to challenge and to lead, then the administration should be ready to engage with students organizing for institutional change”.
In front of the blockaded entrance to the administrative offices in Massachusetts Hall, the students are hosting a day of action, featuring music and speeches by alumni, faculty, student social justice groups, and prominent climate activists. Passers-by in Harvard Yard that day will be able to make T-shirts and write notes to President Faust and members of the Harvard Corporation about why they support fossil fuel divestment.
“We want to get President Faust’s attention”, said Sidni Frederick, undergraduate and Divest Harvard member. “It’s important for the University’s leadership to know that the student body can’t wait any longer for them to begin a real dialogue about why they aren’t taking bolder steps in solving the climate crisis, a problem that threatens all of our futures”.
: KICK OFF RALLY! Divest Day of Action Begins. Featuring Soha Bayoumi, Bob Massie, Leland Cheung, and Tim DeChristopher.
: Faculty Press Conference: Faculty members will be speaking to the media about why they support the divestment movement.
: Faculty and Alumni Rally: Come hear your professors and graduates of the university speak about why divestment from fossil fuels can’t wait. Featuring Wen Stephenson, Shoshana Zuboff, and Fred Small.
: Campus Justice Rally: What challenges do student activists face on campus? How can we make Harvard a more just institution? An open and invigorating discussion about student organizing.
: Community Rally: Climate change affects everybody, but it affects some more than others. Community leaders will share what the divestment movement means for their neighbors, their struggles, and their future.
: Skype-in / Movie Time: Hear from divestment and climate activists beyond Boston, and join us for a green movie screening. Featuring Josh Fox and Eric Grunebaum.
ALL DAY: Arts and crafts, music, and more: paint banners, write letters, have your picture taken, and share your passion.
Visit us at http://divestharvard.com/.
Monday, April 28, 2014
by Peter Sinclair, Climate Crocks, April 28, 2014
I interviewed Kevin Trenberth last week for an upcoming video on the developing El Nino event. He had a number of interesting things to say, which I’ll be pulling together over the next week.
Above, in a nutshell, the bottom line for now.
I interviewed Kevin Trenberth last week for an upcoming video on the developing El Nino event. He had a number of interesting things to say, which I’ll be pulling together over the next week.
Above, in a nutshell, the bottom line for now.
In the wake of a devastating series of twister strikes, here's what the latest science has to say.
Danny Johnston/AP Photo
After a remarkably quiet start, the US tornado season exploded into action over the weekend, as a battery of tornadoes in Arkansas, Iowa, and Oklahoma killed 16 people. The Arkansas towns of Mayflower and Vilona were particularly devastated. Based on preliminary assessments, some of the twisters may have reached EF-3 or stronger on the Enhanced Fujita scale, meaning that they had wind gusts of more than 136 miles per hour.
It all amounts to quite the burst of weather whiplash. Just days ago, after all, USA Today could be found calling 2014 the "safest start to tornado season in a century." April 2014 was certainly looking nothing like April 2011, which featured a staggering 753 tornadoes in the United States, a new all-time record. So what's up with this sharp variation in the behavior of tornadoes, these extraordinarily powerful storms that afflict the US more than any other part of the world? And could global warming have something to do with the matter?
Until pretty recently, scientists really felt that they couldn't say much about that question. "The issue of global warming and severe thunderstorms [which often result in tornadoes] has been an outstanding challenge for the scientific community," explains Noah Diffenbaugh, an Earth scientist at Stanford University who has focused on the question. For instance, a recent consensus report on extreme storms and climate change, published early last year in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, found that there was "little confidence" of any trend in tornado occurrence, and also concluded that there were no clear changes in the environments in which these storms form.
In recent months, though, this consensus—that we really don't know what's happening with global warming and tornadoes—has been challenged by some interesting new research. To understand why, it helps to first grasp some basics on how tornadoes form, a crucial first step toward determining whether global warming may change them.
Tornadoes emerge in some, but not all, severe thunderstorms, powerful explosions of atmospheric energy that also frequently feature lightning, hail, strong winds, and intense rainfall. Scientific research has determined that while a variety of environmental and atmospheric conditions support severe thunderstorm development, two in particular are crucial. The first is that there have to be high levels of so-called "convective available potential energy," or CAPE, which denotes the instability of the atmosphere, and thus how friendly it is to thunderstorm updrafts. The second condition is that there must be strong wind shear, defined as the difference in speed or direction of winds as one ascends from the surface higher into the atmosphere.
Based on this knowledge, researchers have turned to global climate models in order to predict how global warming could change the relationship between CAPE and shear in the the future. And for a long time, the two factors were basically expected to offset each other. Or as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tornado researcher Harold Brooks put it in a 2013 paper summarizing the consensus: "Climate model simulations suggest that CAPE will increase in the future and the wind shear will decrease." So even though higher overall heat might lead to the potential for more explosive storms, the expected decrease in shear meant that potential might not get realized. In other words, it was basically looking like a wash.
That conclusion fell into question late last year, though, with a paper by Diffenbaugh and two colleagues in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Using a suite of the most state-of-the-art climate models, the researchers found, once again, that wind shear decreases under global warming. However, they also found that that didn't really matter, because the number of days with both high CAPE and high shear nonetheless increased. "We find that in fact, at the monthly or seasonal scale, that decrease [in shear] does occur over the US," Diffenbaugh says, "but it's concentrated in these days with very low CAPE." That means that the net number of days with high CAPE and high shear was still projected to increase in the future.
That means more favorable environments for severe thunderstorms in general, but what about the subset of those storms that produce tornadoes? For tornado occurrence, Diffenbaugh explains, wind shear very close to the surface appears to be particularly important. In their new modeling study, Diffenbaugh and his colleagues looked at this parameter too, and they found an "increase in the fraction of severe thunderstorm environments that have high CAPE and high low-level shear," as Diffenbaugh puts it. As the authors wrote, this result is suggestive "of a possible increase in the number of days supportive of tornadic storms."
The paper by Diffenbaugh and his colleagues represents "the first significant evidence that we might expect to see a change in tornadoes," says NOAA's Brooks.
Meanwhile, Brooks thinks he might have found a trend in a different area: actual tornado statistics.
In general, the scientific consensus has been that our tornado data just isn't good enough to support the idea of any clear, historic trend in tornadic activity. But in his latest research, Brooks thinks he has detected a "pretty strong signal that there's been an increase in the variability of tornado occurrence on a national scale." What does that mean? Basically, an increase in erratic behavior: periods with little or no activity, followed by intense bursts of activity.
There's been "a decrease over the last 40 years in the number of days per year with at least one F1 tornado occurring somewhere in the US," says Brooks. "At the same time, there has been an increase in the number of days with at least 30 F1 tornadoes."
As noted above, recent tornado behavior has certainly seemed pretty up and down. According to Brooks, in recent years we've seen records for the most tornadoes ever in a 12-month period, as well as for the fewest in a 12-month period. And Brooks says we are also seeing increasing variability in terms of when the tornado season actually starts. (Note: The relationship between Diffenbaugh's research, and Brooks' new finding, isn't clear at this point.)
In summary, then, it would be very premature to say that scientists know precisely what will happen to tornadoes as global warming progresses. However, they have come up with some interesting new results, which point to potentially alarming changes. More generally, the upshot of this research is that tornadoes must change as a result of climate change, because the environments in which they form are changing.
I want to thank Dr. Cicerone for inviting me today. It really is such an honor to speak to all of you. By advancing science this institution has advanced our nation. Last week we celebrated our 44th Earth Day, and we’ve come a long way.
In 1946, a headline called the smog shrouding L.A “a dirty gray blanket flung across the city.” L.A. was known as the “pollution capital of the world.” School was cancelled for “smog days,” and Orange County seemed to get its name from the color of the sky.
But as pollution built, so did the pressure of millions calling for change. It was a time for action. In 1970, Richard Nixon signed an executive order to create the EPA, and Congress passed the Clean Air Act, paving the way for cleaner air and new technologies like the catalytic converter and smokestack scrubbers—American innovations that cut tail-pipe emissions, slashed power plant pollution, and changed the world.
Since that time, people have thought of EPA as a regulatory referee—leveling the playing field for public health and environmental protection. But I want to talk to you about the rule book that guides us. I want to talk about the bedrock science behind strong and sensible regulatory standards — the science behind lifesaving, landmark laws like the Clean Air Act. It’s Air Quality Awareness Week, so why not focus on clean air?
Science continues to be the engine that drives America’s health, prosperity, and innovation—and pushes global progress. And I’m proud to say that EPA has helped shape that progress for years. Along the way, science has been our professor and our protector.
Through science, we uncovered secondhand smoke’s deadly link to lung disease. Through science, we’ve set health-based air quality standards that protect those most vulnerable — our children, our elderly, and our infirm. Through science, we learned that toxic fumes from leaded gasoline harm our kids’ brain development—and we got the lead out. And through science, we not only discovered the dangers of acid rain, we came up with a market-based solution to fix it.
Today, smoking deaths are down. Lead in our kids’ blood has plummeted. And dangerous levels of all the pervasive air pollutants that harm our health and cause acid rain have been reduced by nearly 70%.
When it comes to quality science that has supported the work of EPA and other federal agencies, the National Academy has been the gold standard. Has it always been easy for us to hear what you’ve told us? No. But even when you’ve challenged us, your tough love has made us stronger. And EPA counts on your science to guide our actions and gauge our progress.
For example, we know certain chemicals can harm our bodies’ endocrine system, which is key to brain function and reproductive health. Thanks to the Academy’s “Toxicity Testing” report, EPA scientists are turning the corner on chemical risk and safety—and positioning America to lead the world. EPA scientists, working with folks across the public and private sector, are developing and using cutting-edge computational toxicology to slash testing timelines by as much as two-thirds—breathing new life into old statutes, saving money and potentially saving lives.
Science untangles the complexity of toxicology so we can make progress even in the face of uncertainty. When EPA puts chemical toxicity and safety data online, manufacturers, retailers and consumers pay attention—change happens.
Science commands the basic need to test and treat drinking water, and it tells us how best to clean contaminated soil and how to keep our homes safe from radon and mold. And recently it has put a renewed focus on “green infrastructure” as a way to manage stormwater and protect drinking water– making our communities more livable and resilient. And if you’ve ever wondered about the health of your local river or lake, thanks to EPA science, there’s an app for that. Our award-winning “How’s My Waterway?” app puts that information at your fingertips.
The work we do together to preserve the integrity of our science is as critical as ever.
That’s why President Obama nominated Dr. Tom Burke to run EPA’s Office of Research and Development. And that’s why EPA is one of the few agencies to have a dedicated, full-time Scientific Integrity Official. In everything we do, EPA relies on transparency, on rigorous peer review, and on robust, meaningful public comment. The expert advice we get from our independent Science Advisory Board is a perfect example of that.
With science as our North Star, EPA has steered America away from health risks, and toward healthier communities and a higher overall quality of life. That’s why it’s worrisome that our science seems to be under constant assault by a small—but vocal—group of critics.
Those critics conjure up claims of “EPA secret science,” but it’s not really about EPA science or secrets. It’s about challenging the credibility of world-renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society. It’s about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyze it—and won’t agree to protect it. If EPA is being accused of “secret science” because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who’ve spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it — then so be it!
Those critics are playing a dangerous game by discrediting the sound science our families and our businesses depend on every day. I bet when those same critics get sick, they run to doctors and hospitals that rely on science from—guess who—Harvard and the American Cancer Society.
I bet they check air quality forecasts from EPA and the national weather service—to see if the air is healthy enough for their asthmatic child to play outside. I bet they buy dishwashers with Energy Star labels, and take FDA-approved medicine, and eat USDA-approved meats. I don’t blame them! People and businesses around the world look to EPA and other federal agencies because our science is reliable and our scientists are credible.
But still—for some reason—those critics keep launching empty allegations at the work of experts without regard for the damage left behind. Let me share one example.
A while back, the National Academy of Sciences recommended that EPA conduct limited studies with real people as participants — to better understand biological responses to different levels of air pollutants. These studies were limited in duration—and only involved levels of pollution found in urban areas across the country. They helped connect the dots in risk and exposure studies that inform ambient air quality standards.
As you know, studies with real people are not new. They happen in universities and industries nationwide. That’s why there are protocols to follow to ensure the safety of participants – and EPA goes above and beyond them – with independent scientists evaluating the studies before, during and after.
Safeguarding health is our top priority at EPA. In spite of all the safeguards to ensure that no one was put in harm’s way, the scientists conducting these studies have been publicly vilified. Their lives have been threatened, their property has been damaged, and they faced the risk that their facility would be shut down. How does that make sense? …When they were just doing their jobs as scientists – in the safest, most professional, most transparent way possible. They were finding facts and laying them out for all to see. These scientists have devoted their lives to making our lives better.
My guess is that those critics who distrust the most trustworthy institutions—and vilify the work of reputable scientists and EPA—are not trying to provide scientific clarity. My guess is that they’re looking to cloud the science with uncertainty—to keep EPA from doing the very job that Congress gave us to do.
As scientists and public health professionals, we have an obligation to speak up when sound science is unfairly criticized, just as we have an obligation to question science that is truly secret.
To those calling EPA untrustworthy and unpopular—newsflash! People like us. They want safe drinking water. They want healthy air. And they expect us to follow the science—just as the law demands. And to those failing to see the need to fund scientific research, tell that to Google, built by a couple of students empowered by a national science foundation grant. Don’t believe me? Just Google it!
People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. You can’t just claim the science isn’t real when it doesn’t align well with your political or financial interests. Science is real and verifiable. With the health of our families and our futures at stake, the American people expect us to act on the facts, not spend precious time and taxpayer money refuting manufactured uncertainties.
And what about the worn-out argument that science-driven policies come with unbearable economic costs? Well that just doesn’t jive with the facts. The truth is: science has supported regulations, policies and programs that have been good for public health, our planet, and our pocketbooks; for consumers and companies.
If you own a TV or refrigerator, you’ve probably heard of our ENERGY STAR program. Eight in ten Americans recognize our efficiency labels. ENERGY STAR has saved families and businesses billions of dollars on utility bills, and billions of tons of greenhouse gases. And without our analysis to guarantee savings, ENERGY STAR is just a fancy blue sticker. But infuse it with the power of science—and that little label helps save the planet.
Our science delivers certainty to businesses and keeps our competitive edge sharp on the global stage. From smoke-stack scrubbers to catalytic converters, America inspires and innovates the world’s leading pollution control technologies, accounting for more than 1.5 million jobs and $44 billion in exports in 2008 alone. That’s more than other big U.S. sectors like plastics and rubber products.
Let’s keep putting our faith in American ingenuity and innovation and the scientific research that makes them possible. The great thing is our environmental laws recognize the need to cultivate that innovation.
The bottom line is: we have never—nor will we ever—sacrifice a healthy economy for a healthy environment.
We have decades of progress to prove it. In total, while the Clean Air Act cut air pollution by nearly 70%, the economy more than doubled. In the 1960s, critics said the catalytic converter would put the brakes on auto production. But guess what? It didn’t. Instead, cars got cleaner and air got healthier. In the 1990s, critics said amendments to the Clean Air Act would dismantle manufacturing. But guess what? They didn’t. Instead, by 2020 the benefits of those amendments will outweigh costs 30 to 1. Today, science has driven us toward historic fuel economy standards that are doubling how far our cars go on a gallon of gas, slashing carbon pollution, and saving families money at the pump, all while fueling a resurgent American auto industry.
When we follow the science, we all win. This country and the world move forward.
And today: the need to follow the science—and the risks of ignoring it—are crystal clear. Just look at the threat of climate change. From more frequent and intense heat waves, droughts, floods, and storms, to more smog and asthma, climate change has put our health and economic risks on steroids.
Using the best science we have to offer, our next U.S. National Climate Assessment is about to be finalized. From coastal cities to the Great Plains, we have to use that science to prepare and to plan—just like we use the science on mercury, acid rain, ozone pollution, particulate matter and more.
To reduce the risks that threaten our health and safety, we need to listen to climate science. We cannot let those same critics of science continue to manufacture uncertainties that stop us from taking urgently needed climate action.
If 97 out of 100 doctors said you were really sick,I’d say it’s pretty risky to go with the 3 that didn’t. Climate evidence is clear—Arctic sea ice is receding to new lows. Seas are rising to new highs. And the cost of inaction is escalating: 2012 was a historically expensive year for disasters, with a price tag of $110 billion dollars. Climate extremes impact insurance premiums, property taxes, food prices, medical bills, and more.
The Academy was right to point out that collective climate risk amounts to an overdose of across-the-board risk: to our health, our economy, our environment, and our security. This is what the science tells us – climate change is not the product of conspiracies or political agendas.
And if there’s one thing we know with 100% certainty, it’s that denial and inaction are the biggest dangers of all.
That’s why the President’s climate action plan to cut carbon pollution and prepare for climate impacts is so critical. And EPA will deliver our pieces of that plan, without fail.
You know, we’ve made a lot of progress since the days of the first Earth Day when burning rivers and clouds of smog were “in-your-face” threats. But in many ways, the challenges we face today are more complex and more threatening than ever before. And to fight these challenges we can’t rely on the technologies and programs of the past.
If we want America to lead the 21st century, we have to look to science to carve new paths forward.
Decades ago, the National Academy helped EPA build the template we now use to look at health risks. And today, you’re helping us weave sustainability into that template because we can no longer afford to fight environmental threats media-by-media or solely rely on the tools and programs that brought us this far.
And thankfully, in the digital age, information is still power – just like it was in the 1960s. Today we can gather and disseminate information like never before. EPA and state regulators are no longer the only “boots on the ground” to fight pollution. Technology has empowered people. That’s what EPA’s Next-Gen program is all about. We have continuous emission monitors on our smokestacks, and handheld devices that can provide real-time data—cheaply and reliably. These technologies are changing the way we do business—and the way businesses do business.
For example, in my home town, in Boston’s Charles River, we plan to use state-of-the-art solar technology to post real-time water quality data online. And recently, EPA engineers and scientists have found a way to develop and analyze data from inexpensive fence-line air-monitoring technology, giving us the potential to provide much more up to date data.
These data help us and our industries ensure compliance. And more importantly, they help families living in the shadow of large industries sleep better at night. That’s what I call environmental justice.
Does that mean we don’t need EPA boots on the ground? No way. But it does mean that electronic data and new technologies expand our ability to hold polluters accountable and to engage more diverse communities in our collective effort to protect public health and the environment.
In fact, our ability to collect and deliver data has literally reached the space age. We’re teaming up with NASA to use a “hyperspectral imager” mounted on the International Space Station to examine coastal water quality like we’ve never done before. One day, we hope to be able to forecast water quality on a daily basis.
Today, the risks we face are different. The solutions we craft must also be different. But just like it was decades ago, that same call to action is loud and clear. Our commitment to science must remain strong.
You know, in the years leading up to the first Earth Day, California Governor Jerry Brown said we’ve “hit the moon with a rocket, and can take close-up photos of Mars. Certainly [we] can produce a device that will mean cleaner air for California.” Well that’s exactly what we did. Science is how we turned “cutting edge” into “commonplace.” It’s how we swept away much of L.A.’s haze.
Progress built on science has defined EPA’s success and delivered a safer and healthier environment to the American people.
But there is much work left to be done. As we take action to reduce carbon pollution and make our communities more resilient in the face of a changing climate, let’s keep speaking up for the leading role of science in America’s continuing story of progress.
I know I speak for everyone at EPA—and people all across America—when I say thank you for all you have done for me and my family. Your work is the cornerstone of a better future—and we’re counting on you now more than ever before.
Thanks again for having me.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
by Peter Sinclair, This Is Not Cool, December 5, 2013