climate change plan

politico.com
Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like
In all of U.S. history, there’s never been a storm like Hurricane Harvey. That fact is increasingly clear, even though the rains are still falling and the water levels in Houston are still rising. But there’s an uncomfortable point that, so far, everyone is skating around: We knew this would happen, decades ago. We knew this would happen, and we didn’t care. Now is the time to say it as loudly as possible: Harvey is what climate change looks like. More specifically, Harvey is what climate change looks like in a world that has decided, over and over, that it doesn’t want to take climate change seriously.

The author, a meteorologist, says, “Once Harvey’s floodwaters recede, the process will begin to imagine a New Houston, and that city will inevitably endure future mega-rainstorms as the world warms… The choice isn’t between left and right, or denier and believer. The choice is between success and failure.”

So im watching Bill Nye's new show on netflix

Im on the first episode and they’re talkin bout the MOSE project going on in Venice to combat the rising water level problem.

I’m really hoping it works cause it’ll set an example for other coastal cities for beating the rising tide.

…but assuming, it doesn’t, I’m startin to wonder how long and how much it would take for me to get over there for a brief vacay. I’d really like to see the city before folks need scuba gear to do so. 😕

dezeen.com
"Urban design caused the Hurricane Harvey disaster"
Houston's poor urban planning, not climate change, is to blame for the catastrophic flooding following Hurricane Harvey, says disaster expert Ilan Kelman.

Note:

Our hearts go out to all those that have suffered because of Hurricane Harvey, right now all the focus should be on helping everyone get to safety. In the next few months and years a lot will be discussed about how Houston grew without any safeguards in place by leaps and bounds to become one of our biggest cities. Like with New Orleans a decade ago tough choices will need to be made to correct course for future generations. I am sharing this article because the truth is that Houston didn’t have poor urban planning, it had no urban planning in a government lead effort not to curb the growth of the city and as always, the ones that suffer the most in these situations, are the ones most in need.

Living with hurricanes is not just about design and planning. It is also about public services and providing knowledge and opportunities to everyone, irrespective of their background. It is taking responsibility for disasters, not blaming the environment or the weather.

Keep reading

‘It’s 3.23 in the morning and I’m awake, because my great-great-grandchildren won’t let me sleep.
My great-great-grandchildren ask me in dreams
“What did you do while the Planet was plundered?
What did you do when the Earth was unravelling?
Surely you did *something* when the Seasons started failing?
As the mammals, reptiles, birds were all dying?
Did you fill the streets with protest when Democracy was stolen?
What did you *do* once you knew?”
—  ‘What Did You Do Once You Knew’ by Drew Dellinger
cnn.com
Meet the kids suing Donald Trump
21 young people are taking Trump and members of his administration to federal court over inaction on global warming. On Saturday, several of these "climate kid' plaintiffs -- the youngest is 9 -- will walk alongside the chanting and sign-pumping adults at the March for Climate, Jobs and Justice in Washington.
By John D. Sutter, CNN

“Their lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Oregon, initially targeted then-President Barack Obama and his administration. Last year, it survived motions by industry and government to dismiss the case. It has taken on new significance in the first 100 days of Trump’s tenure. The President has famously called climate change a hoax, and members of his Cabinet have equivocated on the science  … They’re arguing on constitutional grounds that their rights to life, liberty and property are being violated by runaway climate change. Their attorneys also say these kids and others are being discriminated against as a class of people. Since they’re young, they will live longer into the climate-changed future.”

<3

Story time: The Day I Blocked my Grandmother on Facebook

Setting the scene: My grandmother is a very conservative lady who thinks sexism is over because women can vote, racism is over because we elected a black president, the gays have an agenda, the muslims are taking over, and that global warming doesn’t exist, NASA and the UN are just in cahoots with the Japanese who invented the idea for profit (???). My grandmother has a facebook and because she’s retired and has nothing better to do she likes to reblog usually completely false or misrepresented information in the form of alt-right articles/memes all day long. I unfollowed her. The problem, though, is that if I like or comment on any of my friends posts about, say, concern RE Trump’s education/environmental/healthcare policies, she feels the need to comment. When I or one of my friends give her evidence that her claims are incorrect, or her news sources unreliable, she either stops posting, or accuses us of being brainwashed by the liberal media (yes, she includes research/statistics published by NASA as “liberal media”). Fun. Over the past few days she’s been in high form with all the women’s march photos going around (they have the right to vote what more do they want?, they don’t have jobs, they hate men, they’re all there because they want abortions and handouts), so my patience was already wearing thin. Which brings us to today.

The day begins when I like a friends post about the pro-life movement perhaps being more effective if they A. advocated for scientifically accurate sexual education and B. stopped trying to shut down Planned Parenthood, because they they provide a massive amount of both education and easily accessible contraceptives. Grandma jumps in to say that PP “primarily provides abortions.” I respond with evidence to the contrary. She changes her argument. “Well abortions shouldn’t be federally funded anyway.” I provide evidence that they haven’t been for a while and that federal funds used by PP are allocated for other services, while private funding is used for abortions. “Well I don’t trust them. They’re sneaky and are probably using federal funds anyway.” Ok, grandma. 

At lunch she finds a new thread to comment on, a meme about “alternative facts” in which she claims that the liberal media is brainwashing us and there were, indeed, 1.5 million people at the inauguration. During this she somehow also condemns the middle east as being part of that brainwashing, and, strangely, PBS (a “liberal rag”) enabling it. Ok, grandma.

Shortly after lunch, she comments on two more women’s march pictures (I’ll spare you) and one NPR article about the DAPL. Here she also calls NPR a “liberal rag” and continues on the whole brainwashing thing even after multiple people provide multiple alternate sources for her that say exactly the same thing including Slate and the The Washington Post. Apparently none can be trusted because they are biased ( “liberal rags” was used yet again). Ok, grandma.

Here’s where I hit my limit. She tags me in a video by Live Action (I’m sure you know the one, heavily edited implying that Planned Parenthood was selling fetuses–you know, the video that was proven false by a federal investigation TWO YEARS AGO). I untag myself as quickly as possible and post an article on her wall about the investigation and its findings. I preface it by saying that citing Live Action is the equivalent of citing Breitbart in terms of journalistic integrity. This is what follows.

And that’s the story of how I blocked my grandmother on facebook. 

secluded-delusions  asked:

Which party do you think is the one to least infringe on minority rights? I'd like to vote Green Party but since Trudeau insists on keeping FPTP system, which party do you think has a chance on winning that seems to actually care about the environment and minority rights? I'm so unsure of which party to vote for now. Thanks for the effort you put into this blog, I really appreciate it and trying to become more informed about our politics but I'm never sure which news outlet to follow.

If you want a progressive party that can realistically win, the NDP is your answer.

The Greens don’t actually have as strong a record on social issues as the NDP, and only in very few ridings do the Greens have any chance. If you’re not a fan of the Liberals and want a more progressive party, the NDP is a good one that has a long history of advocating for minority rights and the environment.

The NDP:

-Supports Electoral Reform, and wants Proportional Representation.

-Had the strongest climate change plan in the last federal election (even stronger than the Green Party)

They oppose the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline project (both federally and in BC):

Resounding “no” from B.C. NDP Leader on Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion project

Several B.C. NDP members calling for reversal of Kinder Morgan decision

-Has a long history of advocating for LGBTQ rights. Although Justin Trudeau’s government has introduced legislation giving human rights protections to transgender people in Canada, the NDP has been the one fighting for this for most of the past decade.

Other LGBTQ NDP stuff:

-The NDP has been the most active party trying to help refugees fleeing from Trump’s USA:

NDP: Liberals must provide resources needed for asylum-seekers at our border

-The NDP was the major party trying to bring attention to crises involving indigenous people like Attawapiskat. This is back in 2011, when people weren’t even paying attention to the issue:

NDP challenges Harper to visit Attawapiskat himself

And here’s 2016:

World ‘shocked’ by Attawapiskat suicide crisis: NDP MP Charlie Angus

I could go on and on. If you’re tired of the Liberals and want a progressive government, support the NDP. They have enough of a base to win under FPTP (unlike the Greens), and their policies are much more progressive than the Liberals.

The NDP also in many provinces support a $15/hour minimum wage, expansion of our healthcare system & elimination of university tuition.

Mr. Trump has not only removed America from a leadership role in the climate fight. He has also ordered his minions to kill or weaken beyond recognition every federal initiative on which Mr. Obama had based his pledge.

Please fire me. A co-worker sent an email to our cubicle farm asking for consensus on a temperature. Now 60% of the floor is wandering around into and out of cubicles testing for feel. The zoned heating has never worked correctly in the building in the 6 years I’ve been here.

The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, has already put himself at odds with the vast majority of climate scientists. In a TV interview today, Pruitt said he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to climate change. As NPR’s Nathan Rott reports, his own agency has said otherwise.

NATHAN ROTT, BYLINE: The question asked of Mr. Pruitt on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” was whether or not he believed it’s been proven that carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the, quote, “primary control knob for climate.” Here’s the EPA administrator’s response.

SCOTT PRUITT: No. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do. And there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. That - so, no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.

DAVID TITLEY: I don’t know what Mr. Pruitt does or does not believe in. And honestly it doesn’t really matter what he believes in.

ROTT: This is David Titley, the director of the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate at Pennsylvania State University and a former rear admiral in the U.S. Navy.

TITLEY: The atmosphere doesn’t care what any single person believes. It’s just going to keep getting warmer, and the climate’s going to change as long as we keep increasing the amount of greenhouse gases.

ROTT: The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees with Titley’s point. A report by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just earlier this year said that changes in the planet’s surface temperature are largely driven by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions. The EPA’s own website says, quote, “it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.” Jennifer Francis is a research professor at Rutgers University.

JENNIFER FRANCIS: It would be hard to find a scientist that disagreed with that. The evidence is overwhelming.

ROTT: Pruitt’s comments to the contrary, though, aren’t out of the ordinary for him. During his confirmation hearing, he said that the degree to which humans impact climate change is in question. He’s written on the topic, and as Oklahoma’s attorney general, he sued to stop the Obama administration’s biggest regulation to combat climate change, the clean power plan, with the backing of the oil and gas industry.

Donald Trump has promised to get rid of that plan, as well as another major regulation that aims to limit carbon emissions from cars and trucks. An executive order that would set those changes in motion is expected just next week. Francis thinks all of that is concerning.

FRANCIS: The longer it takes us to get a grip and start reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases, the worse problem it’s going to get and the harder it’s going to be to fix it.

ROTT: The EPA actually has a legal mandate to regulate greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide because of a Supreme Court decision in 2007. But Pruitt in his interview today said he’d like to see Congress weigh in on that, as well. Nathan Rott, NPR News.

Read more: http://www.npr.org/2017/03/09/519499975/epa-head-scott-pruitt-doubts-basic-consensus-on-climate-change