Thursday, May 29, 2014

Denying science versus debating policy

Calls for a national policy to combat the causes of climate change - namely the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere - are intensifying, as major scientific and governmental organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have sought to highlight the established scientific facts, the changes that are already occurring, and to highlight the significant risks we could face in the near future.

Earlier this month, two different groups of scientists reported results that indicate that the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet is essentially inevitable. Such a collapse would result in sea level rise of more than 3 meters.

And next week President Obama and the US Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce new EPA regulations designed to reduce carbon pollution from existing coal-fired power plants.

Enter Amy Ridenour, a syndicated columnist who, on May 23rd, 2014, published an Op-Ed in the Schenectady Gazette in which she listed the "Top 10 reasons why Congress should ignore advice to pass major legislation to combat climate change." (The Gazette doesn't have a link to their version; but here is a link to essentially the same article via the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

How the US and the world should confront the threat of climate change is a complex question, and one that is worthy of debate. Should Congress pass a comprehensive Cap-and-Trade system or Carbon Tax to create market incentives for reducing carbon pollution? Should we rely on Executive-branch regulations like the EPA's rules about powerplants and autos? Or, alternatively, should we do nothing? - for example if the cost of such policies to our economy are too expensive when compared to the future costs of dealing with the effects of climate change.

I have my own thoughts. Amy Ridenour has her own thoughts. By all means, let's have a public debate about what we should do. Let's let those who believe in an activist government face off with those who have a more libertarian bent. But that debate must begin with the acceptance of the scientific facts - that the climate is warming and that humans are responsible.

And that is where Ms. Ridenour's piece went wrong.

She led off her Top-10 list with a whopper at #1: "The world isn't warming." She adopted the well-worn tactic of the Climate Denier community of cherry-picking the >100 year temperature record to select the particular starting point - the late 1990's - that shows little warming. In fact, when the full range of historical temperature records is presented, one cannot help but conclude that the Earth is warming.

My response was to publish a Letter to the Editor to the Schenectady Gazette, in which I called her to task for denying that the world is warming. And, I had some fun pointing to John Oliver's "Statistically Representative" climate debate, in which the balance of scientific opinion is accurately represented by 97 scientists vs. 3 climate deniers.

Ms. Ridenour had her fun, too:

Well played, Ms. Ridenour. Well played.

But let's move on. I would happily listen to the debate about which policy approach is the best. Let's hear economists like Richard Tol debate Nicholas Stern about how we should price present-day action versus future disruptions. Let's compare a market approach like Cap-and-Trade to a carbon tax in terms of which one works best and has the smallest impact on the economy.

But we must start with the acceptance of the scientific facts. Though Ms. Ridenour rails against the use of the "97% of scientists" figure, the existence of climate change and the role of humans is accepted by virtually every major scientific society including AAAS, the National Academy of Science, and the American Geophysicists' Union.

I suspect that writers like Ms. Ridenour begin their analysis of climate science with a distaste for the prescriptions: They don't like the prospect of policies that will increase the price of energy and likely act as a drag on our economy, and so they search for faults with the science. But that's not the way it works.

Accept the science. Then let's debate the policy.

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Bike to Work/School Day, Friday 5/16

Once again it is that time of year for bike to work/school day (5/16) to promote bicycle commuting as a green alternative to driving as well as the general fitness benefits of riding a bike.

We would like to encourage anyone all who are able to bike to and from work/school on the 16th and if you decide to ride please sign up to help bolster our numbers (this is a competition after all!). Use this link to register:

Celebratory breakfast for our cyclists on Friday 5/16 made possible by the Bicycle Advisory Committee & Human Resources. Location/Time TBD.

To stay updated on cycling events & infrastructure on & off campus visit


Monday, May 5, 2014

What Happened at Union 
for Earth Week 2014:

A photo timeline of our events!

Schenectady Greenmarket comes to U!
Owner of 3 Chicks and a Pea with her yummy
fresh hummus and spreads

The Peanut Principle with over 50 varieties of peanut and nut butters.

Zero Out on Plate Waste Part I 
and Bicycle Repair Expo 
by BAC Action Group of U-Sustain

How much food waste does Union generate?
We found out by weighing the food waste in West dining during the lunch period.
On Tuesday during lunch, the average was .17 lbs wasted per person.
We can do better!

Andrew Parnes '17 is the head of the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), 
U-Sustain's newest action group.
He will be organizing events and fix it workshops as well as making 
u-locks and helmets available for rent in the library.
Let's make Union a safe and bike friendly campus!

Ozone House puts on a clothing swap 
in honor of Earth Week 
and in support of Malawi Mommy Bags Project


Zero Out on Plate Waste Part II
and Ban Bottled Water Day 
by Ban Bottled Water Action Group of U-Sustain

Part II of Zero Out on Plate Waste, you receive a gold star for cleaning your plate 
and signage about food waste in put up in the dining hall.
Waste reduction of .01lbs/person during the lunch period 
which may not seem like a lot, but is an important first step!

The Ban Bottled Water Action Group of U-Sustain tabling at Reamer to
 provide information on disposable bottled water and alternatives.

"I Commit" and 
launch of Green Your Event Checklist 
and info by the Green Events Team of U-Sustain