Montana Climate Change Council
Craig over at MTPolitics is doing a series on the Montana Climate Change Council. His first part can, and should, be read here.
You might remember the Council as the group that gave us the Climate Change Action Plan survey.
Recently, too, Montana newspapers gave us an article on the Environmental Quality Council, which examined the Climate Change Council’s recommendations, in which they highlighted the Republican members’ skepticism about man-made climate change. (although the newspaper apparently did not solicit the GOP’s comments about cannibalism or the curvature of the earth.)
So far, it is apparent that Craig is doing the work of the mainstream press by taking a deeper look at the Climate Change Council, looking beyond the media’s bland and generic reference to the “Governor-appointed” panel, to point out that the deck was stacked in favor of finding the existence of man-made climate change:
On first blush, it seems like a reasonable list. Gary Perry and Sue Dickenson are identified by party, but others are not. Let’s look at the list a little bit, and fill in some blanks.
- Peggy Beltrone is a Democrat (although as a county commissioner, those elections are non-partisan)
- Bob Raney, who is not only a Democrat, but serves on the PSC, which are partisan elections.
- Pat Judge, who, judging from his biography, certainly leans left, as does the MEIC.
- Dave Ryan works for NCAT, a group that is very big into the whole climate change hysteria.
- Gloria Flora, who heads up an advocacy group.
- Steve Loken, a Missoula builder affiliated with Center for Resourceful Building Technology, which seems to be down at this time, but his company bills itself as “providing quality workmanship that is environmentally responsible.”
- Mark Brandt, of the Teamsters
- Charles McGraw, of the National Resources Defense Council, yet another advocacy group.
- Trudi Peterson, practitioner of environmentally sound ranching.
- Mary Fitzpatrick, of the Montana Conservation Voters, another advocacy group
- Robert Boettcher, an organic farmer
The only folks remaining are Republican legislator Gary Perry, 3 power industry guys, one of which appears to be the only actual scientist in the whole group, William Walks Along, and a science teacher.
Wow. 11 folks who, by their affiliations and/or professions, appear to be predisposed to the notion that climate change is caused by man. Then, there are 2 management level guys from the power companies who are most likely to avoid rocking the boat at all, one Republican legislator, one actual scientist (and a geophysicist at that), and the remainder seem likely to be chosen from the community at large.
When I was active in a couple of service groups, and we held nominations and elections for officers, we used to all make the sound of a train whistle, since we knew the deck was stacked, and we were going to be railroaded.
Wouldn’t you, as a Montana citizen, want to know just who came up with the recommendations that could impact the way you live your life? Isn’t that the least of what you want to know?
“Peggy Beltrone is a Democrat (although as a county commissioner, those elections are non-partisan)
Correction
The County Elections are Partisan. Ms. Beltrone ran as a Democrat.
Test, test. I can’t seem to post.
YIPEEE! Holy cow. I thought for a moment that GG had banned me! I’ll be back!
In the dark ages Gee Guy would have been one of those people who passionately argued that the world was flat.
Hey Judd, you’re pretty new, so please try to maintain my small semblance of anonymity.
You sound like Al Gore. Is that on purpose?
Judd’s right, Gee. You’re so damn smart, how do you get it so damn wrong? Don’t you have ANY friends who are scientists? You’re kinda like some friends of mine. They are extremely intelligent people, yet they still smoke! Ya gotta wonder if there is a disconnect in their brains somewhere.
You sound like Al Gore. Is that on purpose?
yes.
I really don’t see how having an environmentally responsible building business, practicing environmentally sound ranching or being a part of any number of advocacy groups automatically makes you a believer in human caused global warming. Could it be that some of these people are aware of the warming trend (which was confirmed to me by our local weather people on a field trip to the weather station yesterday) and are taking steps to do their part in making sure they’re NOT contributing to any potential problems?
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t know if jumping right into a pool of conspiracy is the right approach here.
I agree; let’s disband this Montana Climate Change Council immediately.
I subscribe to the theory that this is all a natural occurance of earths cycles. Can not wait untill people start comming up with the theories as to why earth is getting colder.
No, Chello, I’ll go you one better. What is really good is when they say the temperatures are up, so that’s proof of climate change. Then when it goes down, that’s proof of climate change too.
I served on the agriculture, waste management and forestry working group (that provided recommendations to the CCAC) and there was a balance of political perspectives there, including one member of an SME co-op board. FYI, Tim Gregori, SME general manager, was also in energy working group with PPL and other industry reps. Even President Bush has acknowledged human contribution to climate change, though how to deal with it is a political challenge.
President Bush? Well, there’s a guy I look to for hard science. Newton…Einstein…Bush!
(That was a joke, Rich.)
The Carbon CycleThe concentration of carbon in living matter (18%) is almost 100 times greater than its concentration in the earth (0.19%). So living things extract carbon from their nonliving environment. For life to continue, this carbon must be recycled.
Carbon exists in the nonliving environment as:
carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and dissolved in water (forming HCO3_)
carbonate rocks (limestone and coral = CaCO3)
deposits of coal, petroleum, and natural gas derived from once-living things
dead organic matter, e.g., humus in the soil
Carbon enters the biotic world through the action of autotrophs:
primarily photoautotrophs, like plants and algae, that use the energy of light to convert carbon dioxide to organic matter.
and to a small extent, chemoautotrophs — bacteria and archaea that do the same but use the energy derived from an oxidation of molecules in their substrate.
Carbon returns to the atmosphere and water by
respiration (as CO2) burning decay (producing CO2 if oxygen is present, methane (CH4) if it is not.
The uptake and return of CO2 are not in balance.
The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is gradually and steadily increasing. The increase in CO2 probably began with the start of the industrial revolution. Samples of air trapped over the centuries in the glacial ice of Greenland show no change in CO2 content until 300 years ago.
Since measurements of atmospheric CO2 began late in the nineteenth century, its concentration has risen over 20%. This increase is surely “anthropogenic”; that is, caused by human activities:
burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) which returns to the atmosphere carbon that has been locked within the earth for millions of years.
clearing and burning of forests, especially in the tropics. In recent decades, large areas of the Amazon rain forest have been cleared for agriculture and cattle grazing.
Where is the missing carbon?
Curiously, the increase in atmospheric CO2 is only about one-half of what would have been expected from the amount of fossil fuel consumption and forest burning.
Where has the rest gone?
Research has shown that increased CO2 levels lead to increased net production by photoautotrophs. There is some evidence that the missing CO2 has been incorporated by
increased growth of forests, especially in North America;
increased amounts of phytoplankton in the oceans.
The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming
Despite these “sinks” for our greatly increased CO2 production, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 continues to rise? Should we be worried?
Carbon dioxide is transparent to light but rather opaque to heat rays. Therefore, CO2 in the atmosphere retards the radiation of heat from the earth back into space — the “greenhouse effect”.
Has the increase in carbon dioxide led to global warming?
Average temperatures do seem to have increased slightly (~0.6°C) in the last century.
Some evidence:
Careful monitoring of both ocean and land temperatures.
Many glaciers and ice sheets are receding.
Woody shrubs are now growing in areas of northern Alaska that 50 years ago were barren tundra.
Many angiosperms in temperate climates are flowering earlier in the spring than they used to.
Many species of birds and butterflies are moving north and breeding earlier in the spring.
Will continued increase in carbon dioxide lead to more global warming and, if so, how much?
At this point, the answer depends on what assumptions you plug into your computer models. But as the different models have been improved, they seem to be converging on a consensus: a doubling of the CO2 concentration (expected by the end of this century) will cause the earth to warm somewhere in the range of 2.5–3.5°C.
Other Greenhouse Gases
Although their levels in the atmosphere are much lower than that of CO2,
methane (CH4) and
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
are also potent greenhouse gases.
Methane
Although methane (“marsh gas”) is released by natural processes (e.g. from decay occurring in swamps), human activities may now account for over one-half of the total.
growing rice in paddies
burning forests
raising cattle (fermentation in their rumens produces methane that is expelled — collectively adding an estimated 100 million tons a year to the atmosphere).
But estimates can be wrong. In 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that rice paddies were also adding about 100 million tons a year; accurate measurements later showed that this estimate was too high. And to add to the uncertainty, the discovery that plants naturally release methane to the atmosphere was reported in 2006. This previously-unrecognized source may account for 10–30% of the total.
So while the burning of the tropical rain forest adds to the atmospheric methane budget by:
incomplete combustion during burning and
release from the GI tract of the cattle that are later placed on the cleared land,
some of this may be offset by the reduction in the natural production by the trees removed from the forest.
The methane concentration in the air is presently some 1.8 parts per million (ppm) and is growing at a rate of 1% per year. Although this concentration is far less than that of CO2, methane is 30 times as potent a greenhouse gas and so may now be responsible for 15–20% of the predicted global warming.
The marked warming of the earth that occurred at the end of the Paleocene epoch is thought to have been caused by the release of large amounts of methane from the sea floor.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are synthetic gases in which the hydrogen atoms of methane are replaced by atoms of fluorine and chlorine (e.g., CHF2Cl, CFCl3, CF2Cl2).These gases are noninflammable, nontoxic, and very stable. They are widely used in industry as
refrigerants (e.g., in refrigerators and air conditioners)
solvents
propellants in aerosol cans (now banned in some countries)
in the manufacture of plastic foams.
They escape to the air from all of these uses (e.g., from leaky and discarded refrigeration units).
Their chemical inertness, which makes CFCs so desirable for industry, also makes them a threat to the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere, it may take 60–100 years for them to decompose and disappear. In the meantime, they may contribute to as much as 25% of the greenhouse effect. But perhaps even more worrisome is the threat they pose to the ozone shield.
Editor’s Note: Links are fine. Unattributed novels are not.