The 60-year oscillation revisited
2 hours ago
|Representative Kristi Noem, R-South Dakota|
"Japan is already backing away from its own climate change targets. As a participant in the UN climate negotiations last year, I watched this happen. Under the 2009 Copenhagen accord, Japan pledged to reduce CO2 emissions by 25% by 2020. The plan was to increase nuclear to half of national electricity in order to facilitate the carbon cuts, supported by an increase in renewables to 20% by 2030. To reach the same targets without nuclear is impossible: wind and solar combined meet barely 1% of electricity production today in Japan, and there is no way they can be deployed at sufficient scale to meet the gap. So the climate targets will be dropped, as Japan re-carbonises its economy.As a nuclear power advocate and employee of the industry, and someone who is rightly concerned about climate change, his statements are logical and hard to argue against. With nuclear in the mix, until there is a fantastical breakthrough like controlled fusion, we still have a chance to slow down the global warming train. Without nuclear -- we do not have a chance. At all.
It is nothing short of insane that politicians around the world, under pressure from populations subjected to decades of anti-nuclear fearmongering by people who call themselves greens, are raising our collective risk of catastrophic climate change in order to eliminate the safest power source ever invented."
"Governor Romney, President Obama: with the vast majority of the world's credible climate scientists indicating that climate change is a real and worsening threat to the people of the world, and also clearly indicating that human activities, notably fossil fuel energy generation, are the primary cause of current climate change trends - which both of you have acknowledged as correct - and with current events such as the shrinking Arctic ice cap and an increasing number of extreme weather-related disasters linked to climate change - what will you do to address the threat the climate change poses for the national and world economy, security, and natural environment?"That oughta get an interesting response from the candidates.
"Later in the day, we learned from Ed Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication (4C), that the positive impact of Gandy’s reports is not just anecdotal. Maibach’s team surveyed the Columbia, S.C., media market before and after Gandy launched “Climate Matters,” asking questions about climate change to viewers of Gandy’s station, and comparing them with responses from viewers who tuned in to other stations. 4C’s hypotheses heading in to the experiment were borne out. Viewers of Gandy’s station learned more about climate change than viewers of other local newscasts. Furthermore, the more viewers watched Gandy’s program, the more informed they were about climate change and the science behind it. So, to review: More effective climate communication leads to greater public understanding, with some personal gratitude heaped on top. In Columbia, S.C."Good for you, Jim Gandy.