Clear
56°
Clear
Hi 75° | Lo 54°

Letter: President must follow through on climate action

In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama stated clearly that “for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change.” He also promised that “if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.”

It’s a bold and critically needed pledge, and in the year that has followed the president has delivered in part while Congress has not.

The proposed carbon pollution standard for future power plants is a big step forward, as power plants are the leading cause of climate disruption, accounting for 40 percent of the carbon pollution that endangers public health.

In the State of the Union this year, the president must follow through by making the case for climate action and clean energy. We are feeling the effects of extreme weather in New Hampshire and paying the cost in road damage, needed water runoff improvements and sea level rise planning. We need the president to pledge action to protect every American from the effects of extreme weather and health impacts wrought from climate disruption.

CATHERINE CORKERY

Penacook

Climate disruption is a more accurate description of what is happening. Scientists are always trying to reflect that progress. Cute or not - climate disruption is what it is. As for allegations about more extreme weather events - NH Department of Environmental Services reports that extreme weather events are on the rise right here in NH. Plus, the average costs for the damage per event before 2005 was $5 million or less. After 2005, the average costs per event have been well over $5 million. look for yourself: http://www.gulfofmaine.org/2/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Godlewski_GOM-Ignite-Presentation.pdf

huh....are they on the rise since the 30's or just since the 80's????

I wonder how the dinosaurs felt about that pesky natural climate "disruption" - as Mark Twain said - if you don't like the weather in New England - wait 5 minutes.

Good letter! A new study published in the journal "Nature" provides support for climate models that use a higher sensitivity to changes in the amount of CO2 to project future increases in temperature. All the climate models use a range of temperature sensitivities from 1.5 degrees C. to 5 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels. If a higher number turns out to be the more accurate measure of climate sensitivity, as the new study suggests, then severe climate disruption is more likely if we continue with business as usual. That is, unless we begin with a greater sense of urgency to develop and implement renewable and sustainable energy sources, along with more energy conservation and greater efficiencies, and mitigation strategies to address the effects of increased CO2. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/a-bit-more-sensitive/#more-16609

“if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.” Obama does not have the authority to do what he wants to do. That is empty rhetoric as is the hysteria around global warming.

This letters premises is FALSE. FACTS 1) A new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation concludes that there has been no increase in extreme weather events in recent decades. 2) UK Met Office: "Global Temperature Standstill Continues " the Met Office has quietly released the global temperature for 2013. It will come as no surprise after the 2013 temperatures released by NASA and NOAA that it shows the global temperature STANDSTILL – now at 17 years – continues." 3) As for NObamas record... "DOE Green Energy Loans: $11.45 million per job and a rounding error’s worth of averted carbon emissions." 4) "President Barack Obama admitted in an interview with The New Yorker that his plan to lower U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by banning new coal plants would do little to curb global warming" I think it is cute that the author uses the latest rendition of "Globull Warming" as they are now calling it "climate disruption" . Unfortunately - nobody believes them anymore.

Let's see where to start. First where did you find the information by the Global Warming Policy Foundation? Secondly you do realize that they are an obscure UK think tank headed by a social anthropologist and a former banker. As to their expertise on climate, they have none. There stated goal is and I quote their website "GWPF states that it is "deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated"" No science just worry about the cost. --- ----- Your last sentence was incorrect. It should read - "Unfortunately - neither myself or Itsa believes them anymore."

Care to post 1 Fact that is incorrect - OR you could post an apology

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.