Los Angeles Finally Joins the Transition Away From Fossil Fuel Investment

Source: Carbon Brief

Last October, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the realization that by 2045 California will be a net zero (carbon neutral) economy/state.  That rocked the news for a while, and news circulated about the transition.  Speculation as to whether that transition was even possible came from the conservative side of the state, whereas the more liberal side of the state claimed that the law was not enough to make the Paris Agreement targets.



Further criticism circulated in the news regarding Governor Brown's treatment of the fossil fuel industry.  Critics charged that he was not being tough enough on them.  These critics included those in favor of shutting down Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility located in Porter Ranch, California (the Valley).  The following news from Mayor Garcetti last week in an article from the 'Los Angeles Times' titled "Los Angeles ditches plan to invest billions in fossil fuels, Mayor Eric Garcetti says" outlined the plan to achieve transition away from fossil fuels:

Los Angeles has steadily moved away from coal for electricity, divesting from the Navajo plant in Arizona three years ago and announcing plans to stop buying power from Utah’s Intermountain plant by 2025. But with coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, now nearly removed from the city’s energy mix, it’s time to start planning for a future with zero planet-warming energy sources, Garcetti said Monday — and that means no natural gas.

“It’s the right thing to do for our health. It’s the right thing to do for our Earth. It’s the right thing to do for our economy,” Garcetti said. “And now is the time to start the beginning of the end of natural gas.”

“This is the Green New Deal,” he added, referring to the sweeping climate change policies championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y) and endorsed by several contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination. “Not in concept, not in the future, but now.”

The mayor’s decision comes several months after state lawmakers passed a bill requiring California to get 100% of its electricity from climate-friendly sources by 2045, up from a previous target of 50% renewable by 2030.

This comes at the news from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to the Mayor's office regarding the cost associated with repairing (rebuilding) the seven water cooled (ocean cooled) natural gas power plants along with three other plants at a cost of $3.8 billion.  Whereas the cost to rebuilding the three other plants with solar and energy efficiency would be $2.2 billion.  The time has come to transition toward total (carbon neutral) clean energy.



The Mayor has challenged LA DWP with the task and he is right to do so.  Not just to make incremental adjustments.  A new leader should be bold and insist on LA DWP moving at another speed, preferably WARP speed compared to their normal GOVERNMENT speed -- which is filled with obstacles and potential funding limitations.  I commend Mayor Garcetti for taking a bold action step which is in line with Germany and other nations around the world.  I have written on the obvious fact that the transition toward renewable clean energy is inevitable.  Plus, the capital available for investment was small a few years ago, but has been growing over time.



European nations are taking bold steps to change their dependence on dirty energy.  China has liberated us with the ever dropping price of solar.  Solar is dropping in price as we speak.  In a few years, photovoltaics will be a dominant source of energy generation.  Clean solar photovoltaic energy is on its way.  Current limitations in the renewable energy sector which are screamed by the opposition are 'STORAGE'.  How are we (as a nation) going to efficiently store the clean renewable energy to meet off hours demand?  Batteries?  More research needs to be done, but is not far off.



Both the government and the private sector are racing to meet the demands of the future transition toward renewable energy.  A sustainable environment is what is being asked of our nation's residents.  Now, both the private sector along with the government need to make this happen.  Typically, throughout history, when the pressure is applied to an industry, change happens.  In this case, a range of industries are responding to a global pressure and similar to the improvements which are made during war time, the current global investment is exciting and should yield some amazing results.



The future is exciting.



Related Blog Posts:



Parameters: Germany Plans To Cut Coal Dependence By 2038

Over 600 Environmental Groups write letter to Congress to phase out fossil fuels

Governor Jerry Brown Leads The U.S. With Ambitious Calls For 100% Renewable By 2045 -- Wow!!!

Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Parameters: GM Lays Off Thousands Of Workers -- Why? People Are Not Buying Cars?

EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%


135 Climate Scientists Urge Prime Minister Theresa May to Challenge President Trump on his Climate Stance during visit to the UK


Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders


French President Macron Calls On U.S. Congress To Save The Planet


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Parameters: South Korea Uses Renewable Energy For Olympic Games


French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement

Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future

World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?

Over 600 Environmental Groups write letter to Congress to phase out fossil fuels

Source: Green Party US

Last November, voters came to the polls in America and voted to change the House of Representatives from a republican majority to a democratic majority.  Over the last two years, the erosion of the federal agencies oversight to enforce regulations to protect Americans from harm by corporate entities has ensued without major obstacles.  Which is problematic for important issues such as climate change -- which spans over decades not just one election cycle.  Although, action needs to be continuously optimized by encouraging our elected leaders in Congress to have our best interest in mind and keep steering toward sustainable goals which have a positive effect on our planet looking into the future.



One such plan that has emerged with the change of the majority on Capitol Hill is the Green New Deal.  Over 600 environmental groups have written to express support for the Green New Deal and work toward finding solutions in general by forming committees along with passing legislation.  Negotiations are starting to happen which is encouraging to say the least.  Whenever I read about a large number of organizations sending letter to elected officials, I am alway curious about the content of such letters.  What do elected officials receive in letters in the form of information/persuasion toward their argument?  That is what this short blog post is about - persuasive content.



With that being said, the letter is shown below without the signatures:

January 10, 2019

Re: Legislation to Address the Urgent Threat of Climate Change

Dear Representative:

On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we are writing today to urge you to consider the following principles as the 116th Congress debates climate change legislation and momentum around the country builds for a Green New Deal. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently warned, if we are to keep global warming below 1.5°C, we must act aggressively and quickly. At a minimum, reaching that target requires visionary and affirmative legislative action in the following areas:

Halt all fossil fuel leasing, phase out all fossil fuel extraction, and end fossil fuel and other dirty energy subsidies.

The science is clear that fossil fuels must be kept in the ground. Pursuing new fossil fuel projects at this moment in history is folly. Most immediately, the federal government must stop selling off or leasing publicly owned lands, water, and mineral rights for development to fossil fuel producers. The government must also stop approving fossil fuel power plants and infrastructure projects. We must reverse recent legislation that ended the 40-year ban on the export of crude oil, end the export of all other fossil fuels, and overhaul relevant statutes that govern fossil fuel extraction in order to pursue a managed decline of fossil fuel production. Further, the federal government must immediately end the massive, irrational subsidies and other financial support that fossil fuel, and other dirty energy companies (such as nuclear, waste incineration and biomass energy) continue to receive both domestically and overseas.

Transition power generation to 100% renewable energy.

As the United States shifts away from fossil fuels, we must simultaneously ramp up energy efficiency and transition to clean, renewable energy to power the nation’s economy where, in addition to excluding fossil fuels, any definition of renewable energy must also exclude all combustion-based power generation, nuclear, biomass energy, large scale hydro and waste-to-energy technologies. To achieve this, the United States must shift to 100 percent renewable power generation by 2035 or earlier. This shift will necessitate upgrading our electricity grid to be smart, efficient, and decentralized, with the ability to incorporate battery storage and distributed energy systems that are democratically governed. In addition, Congress must bring the outdated regulation of electricity into the twenty-first century, encouraging public and community ownership over power infrastructure and electricity choice, as well as permitting distributed energy sources, including rooftop and community solar programs to supply the grid.

Expand public transportation and phase out fossil fuel vehicles.

As the transition away from fossil fuels occurs, our transportation system must also undergo 100 percent decarbonization. To accomplish a fossil-fuel-free reality, Congress must require and fund greater investment in renewable-energy-powered public transportation that serves the people who need it most. The United States must also phase out the sale of automobiles and trucks with internal fossil fuel combustion engines as quickly as possible and phase out all existing fossil fuel mobile sources by 2040 or earlier. Federal credits for electric vehicles must be expanded.

Harness the full power of the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act provides powerful tools that have proven successful in protecting the air we breathe and reducing greenhouse pollution. It can also serve as an important backstop to ensure climate targets are met. Congress should harness the full power of the statute by setting strict deadlines and providing adequate funding for EPA to carry out all its duties under all applicable sections of the Act, including implementing greenhouse pollution reduction requirements for cars, trucks, aircraft, ships, smokestacks and other sources, as well as a science-based national pollution cap. The Act has successfully reduced many air pollutants and can do the same for greenhouse pollution.

Ensure a Just Transition led by impacted communities and workers.

In effectuating this energy transformation, it is critical to prioritize support for communities who have historically been harmed first and most by the dirty energy economy and workers in the energy sector and related industries. We support a comprehensive economic plan to drive job growth and invest in a new green economy that is designed, built and governed by communities and workers. Building new energy, waste, transportation and housing infrastructure, designed to serve climate resilience and human needs; retrofitting millions of buildings to conserve energy and other resources; and, actively restoring natural ecosystems to protect communities from climate change, are but a few ways to build a sustainable, low carbon economy where no one is left behind during this change.

Uphold Indigenous Rights

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) must be upheld and implemented, along with treaties, instruments and decisions of international law that recognize that Indigenous Peoples have the right to give or withhold “free, prior and informed consent” to legislation and development of their lands, territories and/or natural resources, cultural properties and heritage, and other interests, and to receive remedies of losses and damages of property taken without consent. 

Further, we will vigorously oppose any legislation that: (1) rolls back existing environmental, health, and other protections, (2) protects fossil fuel and other dirty energy polluters from liability, or (3) promotes corporate schemes that place profits over community burdens and benefits, including market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, waste-to-energy and biomass energy. Fossil fuel companies should pay their fair share for damages caused by climate change, rather than shifting those costs to taxpayers.

We look forward to working with you to address the gravest environmental crisis humanity has ever faced, to protect all present and future generations around the world, while centering the rights of those communities and workers most impacted.

Sincerely,

The above letter was signed by over 600 environmental groups.  The names of which can be found at the end of the letter hyperlinked -- here.   There is no question that if various elected officials on both sides consider climate change to be a threat to our national security (to our planet on a much larger scale), then negotiation needs to start happening soon if change is going to follow in the future.



There are people who do not think that climate change is real or a major threat.  As a scientist, I can just defer to a non-scientist's reasoning.  Recently, I was listening to a podcast titled "Mike Drop" which was an interview between two former Navy Seals about all aspects of life.  Mike Ritland interviews Andy Stumpf about all aspects of life spanning from gun control to climate change.  When the topic of climate change came up, here is what was agreed upon (at 3:02:16 into podcast):

". . . I'm trying to close the loop on that yeah ... I mean I would say I'm probably similarly ignorant to it other than the fact that to me common sense would tell you you know basically what you said but then also just ... just take automobiles as an example is that you know if you can shut your garage door, turn your car on and be dead in a matter of minutes like chances are with (Andy Stumpf breaks in with "you know I think you need a hose for that too") ... but you know ... ya I got your fucking hose ... yeah you know chances are that having ... you know hundreds of millions of vehicles billions you know driving ... or if you know is probably not that great for us you know and that's one example"

That was a great example offered up from interviewer Mike Ritland.  Common sense would tell you that if you can close the door of your garage with the car still running, eventually, the fumes will kill you.  Therefore, having billions of tons of CO, CO2 spewing into your environment are probably not that good.



With that being said, the new change to the House of Representatives seems to be on the right track with the emerging Green New Deal in discussion.  A discussion is where change starts to happen.  And as has been highlighted in the last couple of years, changes are greatly needed in the direction toward sustainable energy while steering us clear of our dependence on fossil fuels.  Keep asking your elected officials to consider clean energy along with the environment when a vote is under consideration on capitol hill.



Related Blog Posts:



Senator Carper Blasts Environmental Protection Agency For Considering Relaxing 'Mercury and Air Toxics Standard'?

What does a Government Shutdown look like?


What is the difference between General Anxiety Disorder and Trump Anxiety Disorder?


Congress Gets Involved In Beef Recall


How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?


NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science


Governor Jerry Brown Leads The U.S. With Ambitious Calls For 100% Renewable By 2045 -- Wow!!!


Thoughts: An example letter of opposition to repealing the 2015 Clean Waters Rule


EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%


Chemical Safety Board's Future Uncertain as Hurricane Season Approaches


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


President Trump Just Allowed Greater Environmental Risk To Children's Health


Thoughts: Senator Bernie Sanders Asks Public To Get Involved In The Public Process At Any Level


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Coal Magnate Murray Shames Fossil Fuel Industry For Being "Forward Thinkers" For Energy


Democrats Question EPA Adminstrator Scott Pruitt On Historical Job Cuts At EPA


There Is No Climate Debate -- Scientific Facts Have Settled The Issue?

Why Would A President Choose To Deregulate The Environmental Protection Agency?

A Republican Senator Votes "NO" For EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt For The Environment?

Write Your Elected Official And They Will Write Back?

Parameters: How Much Ice Is Melting In The Antarctic? Enough To Cover Texas?

Source: NPR

Climate scientists often discuss the alarming amount of ice which is melting in the antarctic.  According to an article in the 'Associated Press' titled "Climate change is more extensive and worse than once thought" an enormous amount of ice has melted since 1992 alone:

Antarctica has lost nearly 3 trillion tons of ice since 1992, enough to cover Texas nearly 13 feet (4 meters) deep, scientists reported in June. Greenland has lost more than 5 trillion tons in the same period.

Wow. Really?  The author extends help in visualizing the enormous amount of ice melting by providing a metric -- namely the amount would cover the state of Texas in a depth of 13 feet of ice.  My goodness.  I wanted to follow up with that statement and check to see how the numbers checked out.  Below is the analysis.

How large is Texas?

Texas has a land mass totaling 268,597 square miles as shown below:

Source: Google

With the area of Texas in hand, the only remaining parameter needed to find the total volume of water is the 'height'.   Although, in our case, we are verifying the statement above regarding the 'height' of ice over a given area (Texas).  The expression for the total volume of ice being considered in the article is shown below:

The area of Texas has already been determined by a Google search (as shown above) along with the stated value of 'height' equal to 4 meters.  Also, the total volume of ice which has melted is given too.  In this blog post, we are verifying the stated values contained in the excerpt.  Namely, that the total volume of ice -- 3 trillion tons of ice -- would spread a layer of ice over the entire state of Texas with an height equal to 4 meters.



In order to verify the values in the statement above, we need to do unit conversions of a couple of values above to end up in uniform units.  The uniform units of choice is 'meter'.  Therefore, to start with, a quick search of the number of square meters in a square mile would yield the following shown below:

Source: Google

For every 1 square mile, there are 2,590,000 square meters.  Now we have the area in units of square meters along with a height in units of square meters.  The only remaining parameter is volume to convert into units of 'meters' -- for a volume -- cubic meters.  The volume of ice is stated in the excerpt above in units of 'tons' - which is a unit of 'mass'.  In order to convert from a mass to a volume, the conversion factor used is the substance's density -- the amount of mass in a given volume.



In order to determine the density of ice, we simply type into a search engine: What is the density of ice?  The following appears as shown below:

Source: Google

The density of ice is 0.92 grams/cubic centimeter.  Since there are 100 centimeters in a meter, then there are 100 meter x 100 meter x 100 meter (volume = length x width x height).  Therefore, the density of ice is equal to (0.92 gram/ cubic centimeter) x (1,000,000 cubic centimeter/cubic meter) = 920,000 gram/cubic meter.



To convert the mass in units of 'ton' to mass in units of 'gram' the conversion factor needs to be known.  Consulting a search engine with the following question: How many grams are in a ton? The answer is shown below:

Source: Google

The answer indicates that in a ton of ice, there are 907,185 grams of ice.  An expression for the density of a given substance is shown below:

The density as indicated by the expression above is the amount of mass in a given volume.  In our case, the density of ice gives us a conversion factor to use to convert a 'mass' of ice into a 'volume' of ice -- which is part of our intention in verifying the above statement from the news.  Given that information (values) and expression for density, the volume can be obtained by dividing the 'mass' of ice by the 'density' of ice (conversion factor) as shown below:

A total of 3 trillion tons of ice was reported to have melted in a given time.  But wait, where did the number in the expression above -- 2,720,000,000,000,000,000 grams -- in the numerator (number above the line in the fraction) come from?  That is the converted mass of ice - 3 trillion tons - expressed in units of 'gram' rather than 'ton'.  In order to use the number in the expression above, a unit conversion was needed.  The conversion is shown below:

Using the determined conversion factor above of 907,185 grams to every single ton, the total amount of grams in 3 trillion tons of ice is equal to 2,720,000,000,000,000,000 grams.  This is the mass which was used in the equation to determine the volume above. 



Next, in order to determine the height of spreading this enormous amount of ice over the entire state of Texas, an expression from above needs to be brought up -- the height -- as shown below:

Using the area calculated above which is equal to the total size of the state of Texas, the height of the total volume of ice spread over the entire state can be determined as follows:

The answer indicates that if 3 trillion tons of ice were spread over the total state of Texas, the height of the ice sheet would be just over 4 meters -- 4.25 meter. This is in accordance with the answer above -- reported in the news!

Conclusion....

Wow.  The above analysis is proof that the author is correct in their assertion of the magnitude of the terrible amount of ice which is melting in the antarctic.  Furthermore, the above analysis gives us the ability to reason through the reported numbers to convince ourselves of the magnitude of the situation.  Given that some readers might find this analysis mundane, for me, I reason through the content of an article by proving to myself (with my own analysis), that the number is justified to be reported.  Nevertheless, the amount of ice is enormous and worth considering thinking about our own unique contribution to the scale of the issue.  Eventually, the problem will have to be dealt with in the near future.



Related Blog Posts:



Parameters: How many sticks of butter are contained in 7.5 million pounds of butter?

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster asks lawmakers for $1,228,000,000 For Recovery from Hurricane Florence?

Boston Natural Gas Explosion Reveals Old Piping Needs Replacement - Enough To Travel To Colorado?

A Forecaster Predicts That Hurricane Florence Will Drop Enough Rain To Fill 18,400 Mercedes-Benz Superdomes

Hurricane Harvey Drops Enough Rain On Houston To Fill 560 Dallas Cowboy Stadiums

How Much Water Is Contained In All Oceans Around The Globe?

Storm Raises Water Level In Lake Cachuma By 31 feet, How Much Water Is That?

How To Make Sense Of Water Flowing At 100,000 Cubic Feet Per Second

Can 11 Trillion Gallons Of Water Fill 14,000 Dallas Cowboys Stadiums?

How Much Rain Did The East Coast Receive From Hurricane Matthew?


How Much Rain Did Haiti Really Receive?

How Much Rainfall Has Dropped On Louisiana?


How Big Was The "Water Bomb" Of Rainfall In Macedonia?

How Much Rain Did Huauchinango (Mexico) receive?

How Much Rain Did Elliot City (Maryland) Really Receive?

If The Mosul Dam Breaks, The City Of Mosul Would Be Under 65 Feet Of Water?

What is the volume of water in a few inches of rain?


Volume of Waste in the Mine Spill (in Brazil) Equivalent to 78 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills

The Executive Director Of The American Meteorological Society Educates President Trump On Climate Change

Source: Physics.Org

Regardless of your view on climate change, the idea that change is not occurring around us as a result of actions over time is a far reaching concept.  Government officials (elected officials) -- senate and congressional leaders are in agreement.  Although, constituents may influence their ability to relay their position in a public forum.  Why?  Furthermore, why does our President of the United States feel such a compelling force to step in front of a camera and take a stance counter to what scientific evidence points to as being true?  To counter the misinformation spread by the President on an interview, the Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) stepped up and wrote a letter in opposition to his actions.  Lets take a small step back before showing the letter written in opposition to the President.  What is the AMS?



The American Meteorological Society consists of more than 13,000 scientists with the following mission:

The American Meteorological Society advances the atmospheric and related sciences, technologies, applications, and services for the benefit of society.

With a historical context as follows:

 Founded in 1919, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) is the nation’s premier scientific and professional organization promoting and disseminating information about the atmospheric, oceanic, and hydrologic sciences. Our more than 13,000 members include researchers, educators, students, enthusiasts, broadcasters and other professionals in weather, water, and climate.

With this introduction to the Meteorological Society in mind, here is the letter from the Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society below:

16 October 2018

President Donald J. Trump

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Trump:

The interview with Lesley Stahl on “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday, 14 October, included several questions related to climate change, reflecting the fact that this is an issue of vital importance to the nation. You raised several points in your replies that provide an opportunity for input from the scientific and science policy communities.

There is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence that shows that the warming global climate we have been experiencing in recent decades is primarily caused by human activity and that current long-term warming trends cannot be expected to reverse if no action is taken. These conclusions come from multiple independent lines of evidence. As is standard for the scientific process, each of these lines of evidence has undergone rigorous testing and has overcome all credible challenges. They reinforce one another and there are no contradictory lines of evidence that withstand scientific scrutiny. As a result, the basic scientific conclusions about climate change are extremely robust.

There are highly promising risk management options — ones that can reduce the risks of climate change, strengthen the U.S. economy, and promote job creation. Nevertheless, choices about whether and how to respond are complex, as you noted in your interview. People can welcome and accept the basic scientific assessments and still reach different conclusions about what to do. Many options would be consistent with your policy priorities.

You also said that scientists are making this political, which is misleading and very damaging. The scientific community welcomes all who commit to the pursuit of understanding through science irrespective of their political views, religious beliefs, and ethical values. As an institution, the American Meteorological Society takes no political positions and we proudly count among our members both individuals who strongly support you and those who routinely disagree. We are stronger for the breadth of our membership.

The American Meteorological Society would welcome the opportunity to work with your staff to ensure that they have full access to credible and scientifically validated information as you navigate the many difficult policy areas impacted by the Earth’s changing climate. We are confident that viable solutions exist and that they can be fruitfully developed if the best available knowledge and understanding is applied to the issues at hand.

Sincerely,

Keith L. Seitter 

As stated so clearly by Director Keith Seitter in the letter above, the evidence for climate change and the human component is overwhelming and robust.   The letter above is provided to the reader (you) to observe the evidence (support) that is sent to the President of the United States -- which he is obviously ignoring.  Scientific evidence is ignored?  Amazing.



The science is clear along with the growing support for the reality of change - which is greatly needed.  How to get that change implemented is unknown at the moment.  I will suggest though that part of the solution lies within each of us -- which is to say -- each of us should educate ourselves on the issue at hand and the scientific evidence which is being presented.  That education does not necessarily rely upon a college education,  just looking at the world around us.  As an example of this point, an article from 'The Scientist' titled "Sports Videos Give Clues to Climate Change" reports a new method used by scientists to observe the effects of climate change:

Over the course of five weeks, Van Langenhove identified 46 individual trees and shrubs that had been caught on film from multiple angles, giving the team 523 images to use to track when the plants leafed and flowered each year, and to measure the size of the leaves. When analyzing the data, the team found that during races that took place in the 1980s, almost no trees or shrubs on the course had begun to flower, and only 26 percent showed any leaves. But from 2006 onward, 45 percent of the same woody plants had started to leaf and 67 percent had started flowering by the time the cyclists hit the road in early April. And when the team correlated the plant data with local climate data—which have logged a temperature increase of 1.5 °C since 1980—the researchers found a solid link between warmer winter temperatures and earlier leafing and flowering (MEE, 9:1874–82, 2018).

The realization that video taken by an international sports organization could serve as a 'standard' for qualitatively observing the ecological changes associated with differing climates over time was ingenious.  This work shows that a person does not have to be educated (a formal education) to contribute to the evidence associated with climate research.  Each of us are scientists at heart as I have stated before.



Related Blog Posts:


Scientists compare Misinformation In Mainstream News to a Viral Infection

EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%

135 Climate Scientists Urge Prime Minister Theresa May to Challenge President Trump on his Climate Stance during visit to the UK

Why Is International Climate Action Important To Your Higher Education Institution?

Scientists Write President Trump Regarding Climate Action

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


A Good Start: Republicans Accept Climate Change As Real

There Is No Climate Debate -- Scientific Facts Have Settled The Issue?

How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???

Republicans Endorse Carbon Tax For Climate Change? Wow

EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?

Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan

Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice

French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations

Should Pollution Concern Us?

The title is simple right?


Easy question, should the amount of pollution over major cities concern the citizens of this planet?



Depending on who you ask, the answer might differ.  Why does this have to be the case?



Recently, I found a great short video by California's previous Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on the adverse effects of pollution.  I thought that I would bring the contents of the video to your attention just in case you were too busy to take out a minute and a half to watch the video below:

If you did not watch the video, here are the highlights of the important video:



1) 7 million people die world-wide because of pollution related illnesses


2) That is more than the following combined: suicides, traffic fatalities, and war casualties!


3) Politicians take the stand that the problem is "too costly to fix" -- imagine that politicians love to spend money to get results which promote votes from their constituents.


4) Politicians are trying to shut down the EPA's ability to regulate carbon.


5)  Arnold's Solution: strap their mouths (politicians) to the tailpipe of a truck exhaust pipe and then turn on the engine and see how long it takes for them to "tap out".


6) In California, politicians have shown that the possibility exists to protect the environment and the economy at the same time.


7) After California passed strict climate change laws, the economy grew by 12.4%


8) If the biggest economy in the country can thrive under the strictest environmental laws, that means the same is possible all over the country as a whole.


9) California has outpaced Texas in GDP growth since 2011.






Pictures of Air Pollution Around The World:





1) United States of America (USA):

Source: RT.com

Source: Wikipedia

Source: USAtoday.com

2) India:

Source: Map of India

Source: airpollutioninda

Source: Washington Post

Source: Times of India

3) China

Source: SoftPedia

Source: Bored Panda

Source: Bored Panda

Source: Bored Panda

5) Russia:

Source: worstpolluted.org

Source: TESteach

Source: DW.com

There are many more pictures available for your viewing online with a search of the topic: "air pollution in .... images" where "..." stands for the country of interest (Russia, USA, China, India, etc.).



Below is a satellite image of the particulate matter (of size 2.5 micrometer) distribution across of the globe.  USA is quite blue -- meaning relatively lower levels compared to other parts of the world.

 Source: NASA

As the pictures still portray above of air pollution around the world, there is still work to be done.  The overarching take home message to all residents of the world should be the following:

Each of us breathe the same air in the world.  Working together, the world would be a healthier place to live.  As it stands now, we are on a deadly trajectory for the future.

Action is needed!



Until next time, Have a great day!