Global Warming

[libby]

There's some significant stuff going on regarding climate change. Activists, politicians and celebrities rallied in New York Sunday, and heirs to the Rockefeller fortune have decided "to begin severing financial ties to fossil fuels."

The following is from yesterday's Washington Post:

Big Oil's heirs join call for action as climate summit opens

Actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) were among the estimated 100,000 demonstrators who joined the People's Climate March in New York on Sunday, demanding action on the issue of climate change. (Divya Jeswani Verma/The Washington Post)

By Joby Warrick and Steven Mufson September 21, 2014

For 140 years, the Rockefellers were the oil industry's first family, scions of a business empire that spawned companies called Exxon, Mobil, Amoco and Chevron. So it was no trivial matter when a group of Rockefeller heirs decided recently to begin severing financial ties to fossil fuels.

"There is a moral imperative to preserve a healthy planet," said Valerie Rockefeller Wayne, a great-great-granddaughter of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller Sr. and a trustee of the largest charitable foundation in which the family still plays the leading role.

On Monday, the foundation, known as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, will formally announce plans to begin divesting itself of fossil-fuel stocks, citing concerns about climate change. The symbolic cutting of ties to a key part of the family's heritage is being timed with the start of another symbolism-laden event: a gathering of world leaders to grapple with the environmental consequences of decades of fossil-fuel burning.

President Obama will join heads of state from more than 120 countries Tuesday at an unusual climate summit convened by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The meeting in New York is aimed at persuading governments to do more to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the face of new evidence of an accelerating buildup of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The high-level gathering — the biggest since a troubled round of international climate negotiations in Copenhagen five years ago — is likely to underscore the diplomatic and political difficulties ahead as the governments seek to hammer out a treaty limiting global greenhouse-gas emissions by late next year. The Obama administration separately faces tough negotiations with overseas trading partners China and India over proposed cuts in fossil-fuel burning, while also defending its climate policies against attacks from Republican opponents in Washington.

But the perception of halting progress on climate politics stands in sharp contrast with an increasingly energetic movement that will be on display on the summit's periphery. An unlikely coalition of groups — including corporate executives, philanthropists and urban planners — are in New York this week to showcase practical steps being implemented to address the causes of climate change and mitigate its effects.

Entrepreneurs and businesses will promote technology breakthroughs that are making wind and solar power competitive with more traditional energy sources in some parts of the country. And investors and foundations with collective holdings in the tens of billions of dollars will formally join a global ­"divest-invest" movement that seeks to shift capital from fossil-fuel extraction to renewable energy.

New participants in the movement, such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, say their decision reflects not only concerns about the environment but also a belief that renewables are becoming an increasingly sound investment at a time of growing uncertainty about the future of fossil fuels such as coal.

"The action we're taking is symbolism, but it is important symbolism," said Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which controls nearly $900 million in assets. "We're making a moral case, but also, increasingly, an economic case."

The summit's formal events are playing out against a boisterous backdrop that includes thousands of activists and protesters. On Sunday, a crowd estimated by organizers at more than 300,000 marched through central Manhattan in what was believed to be the biggest climate-related demonstration ever held. The massive rally, which was mirrored by smaller protests in other cities around the globe, drew not only environmental activists but also college students, labor groups, A-list Hollywood celebrities such as actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo, and politicians including New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D).

"Our mission is to make this a decisive moment and a turning-point moment, and I felt today that I was seeing history starting to be made," de Blasio told reporters.

But several key names are missing from this week's summit. China, the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, will be represented by its vice premier, Zhang Gaoli, rather than President Xi Jinping. India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi likewise will skip the gathering, although he is expected to discuss climate change during an official visit to the White House this month. Several European governments are being represented by foreign ministers or other senior cabinet officers.

[The Troll]

Did you even bother to read the article or see who wrote it?

  Well it was written and released by the Wall Street Journal which the old    Rupert Murdock owns and also owns Fox New Network.

                                                                             

[Exterminator]

Anyone who still doesn't believe that man can have a substantial impact on the environment (and is content to ignore our own dust bowl in the 30's as evidence thereof) should go look at current pictures of the Aral Sea, once the world's fourth largest lake at 26,300 square miles.

[Bo D]

Anyone who still doesn't believe that man can have a substantial impact on the environment (and is content to ignore our own dust bowl in the 30's as evidence thereof) should go look at current pictures of the Aral Sea, once the world's fourth largest lake at 26,300 square miles.

Not really on topic, but more information on the devastating effect man has on his environment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/30/weve-killed-off-half-the-worlds-animals-since-1970/

The new Living Planet Index report from the World Wildlife Fund opens with a jaw-dropping statistic: we've killed roughly half of the world's non-human vertebrate animal population since 1970.

The main culprits? Exploitation (i.e., overfishing and overhunting), and habitat degradation.

[Henry Hawk]

Do you realize that it has been 9 years since a major hurricane (Cat 3 or greater) has struck the U.S., the last being Wilma in October, 2005.

According to the Alarmists, after Katrina, that was supposed to be the norm, with more and more violent hurricanes due to man's output of carbon dioxide.

Ex, I never ONCE said that man cannot create a substantial impact on the environment.

I am just not sold that the climate change we are seeing is all caused by man, if any of it is, at least I am not ready to begin to ruin economies and give billions to the UN to "fix" a problem that may not even exist.

I think there is way too much corruption in this GW political fiasco.

and that is what I think about it.

[Exterminator]

Do you realize that it has been 9 years since a major hurricane (Cat 3 or greater) has struck the U.S., the last being Wilma in October, 2005.

According to the Alarmists, after Katrina, that was supposed to be the norm, with more and more violent hurricanes due to man's output of carbon dioxide.

Ex, I never ONCE said that man cannot create a substantial impact on the environment.

I am just not sold that the climate change we are seeing is all caused by man, if any of it is, at least I am not ready to begin to ruin economies and give billions to the UN to "fix" a problem that may not even exist.

I think there is way too much corruption in this GW political fiasco.

and that is what I think about it.

Not that it has any bearing on anything but Sandy, in 2012, was a category 3 hurricane so your information is sadly lacking.  Believe whatever you want; it's your kids and grand-kids that will have to live with the results of your denial; not mine.

[Exterminator]

Not really on topic, but more information on the devastating effect man has on his environment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/30/weve-killed-off-half-the-worlds-animals-since-1970/

The new Living Planet Index report from the World Wildlife Fund opens with a jaw-dropping statistic: we've killed roughly half of the world's non-human vertebrate animal population since 1970.

The main culprits? Exploitation (i.e., overfishing and overhunting), and habitat degradation.

"'Humanity currently needs the regenerative capacity of 1.5 Earths to provide the ecological goods and services we use each year,' according to the report. The only reason we're able to run above max capacity - for now - is that we're stripping away resources faster than we can replenish them."

[Henry Hawk]

Not that it has any bearing on anything but Sandy, in 2012, was a category 3 hurricane so your information is sadly lacking.  Believe whatever you want; it's your kids and grand-kids that will have to live with the results of your denial; not mine.

Sandy was NOT a category 3 when it hit the US, so YOUR information is sadly lacking.  You are right, it will be my kids and grandkids that has to live in this world, and following a corrupt agency yelling the sky is falling is NOT where I want them to do.
Like I said a million times on here, I am ALL in favor of making this world cleaner and safer....but NOT throwing money into a political spin machine.

[Exterminator]

Sandy was NOT a category 3 when it hit the US, so YOUR information is sadly lacking.  You are right, it will be my kids and grandkids that has to live in this world, and following a corrupt agency yelling the sky is falling is NOT where I want them to do.
Like I said a million times on here, I am ALL in favor of making this world cleaner and safer....but NOT throwing money into a political spin machine.

Not that you'll be around to see it but they will pay dearly for your ignorance and absolute denial of science.

[Henry Hawk]

Not that you'll be around to see it but they will pay dearly for your ignorance and absolute denial of science.

You are one goofy dude.

[Palehorse]

Anyone who still doesn't believe that man can have a substantial impact on the environment (and is content to ignore our own dust bowl in the 30's as evidence thereof) should go look at current pictures of the Aral Sea, once the world's fourth largest lake at 26,300 square miles.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/30/world/asia/aral-sea-drying/index.html

One of the more shocking visuals I have seen surrounding global warming and man's negative impact upon the environment. 

It just sickens me.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/30/business/wild-life-decline-wwf/index.html

Combined with the recent revelation that the worlds wildlife population has declined by just over half (average) over the last 40 years, and it paints a very bleak picture surrounding the world our children and grandchildren will be faced with when they reach our age bracket.

76% decline in fresh water species populations between 1970 and 2010

39% décline in terrestrial populations.

39% decline in marine species population.

Averaging 52%!

[Henry Hawk]

It is not all doom and gloom.  Because of man, we now have:

White tailed deer - 380,000 in 1900 - 15 million in 2000, current estimate 30,000,000.  Bald Eagle - 1900 - unknown - 1963 - 487 nesting pair - current estimate 12,000 pairs
Buffalo - 1900 ~700 ,  1950 - 5000 , current ~ 350,000

This is just naming a few....I agree, it can be alarming when you read "Hit" pieces like this...Global Warming is natural for the most part.....animals adapt and humans adapt. 

Creating a political body full of corruption to over look this is WRONG, and I will NEVER buy into it.
It doesn't mean I am against finding better alternative fuel and doing more to keep our planet clean....I just think this path that is being forced upon us is NOT ever going to work and we need to quit the bickering and come up with a mutual plan that works.

[The Troll]

It is not all doom and gloom.  Because of man, we now have:

White tailed deer - 380,000 in 1900 - 15 million in 2000, current estimate 30,000,000.  Bald Eagle - 1900 - unknown - 1963 - 487 nesting pair - current estimate 12,000 pairs
Buffalo - 1900 ~700 ,  1950 - 5000 , current ~ 350,000

This is just naming a few....I agree, it can be alarming when you read "Hit" pieces like this...Global Warming is natural for the most part.....animals adapt and humans adapt. 

Creating a political body full of corruption to over look this is WRONG, and I will NEVER buy into it.
It doesn't mean I am against finding better alternative fuel and doing more to keep our planet clean....I just think this path that is being forced upon us is NOT ever going to work and we need to quit the bickering and come up with a mutual plan that works.

  Oh the people who are so blind that they can't see, hear or listen.  That's you Boy, just  plain brain dead.   Why do we have more eagles, more buffalo more deer?  It's because of government action.  If it was left up to the Republicans there would be no deer, no buffalo, no eagles and if the global warming was left up to the Republicans and corporations this world will be left a dieing dead planet.      I say Hawk Boy, I say Hawk Boy you ain't very smart.     

[Henry Hawk]

  Oh the people who are so blind that they can't see, hear or listen.  That's you Boy, just  plain brain dead.   Why do we have more eagles, more buffalo more deer?  It's because of government action.  If it was left up to the Republicans there would be no deer, no buffalo, no eagles and if the global warming was left up to the Republicans and corporations this world will be left a dieing dead planet.      I say Hawk Boy, I say Hawk Boy you ain't very smart.     

Hey Troll, just so you know, it was Richard Nixon (a republican) who started the EPA and signed the Endangered Species Act of 1973, along with MANY other acts that we have today....

I think the difference between the Right and the Left on environmental issues is that the right is couples in our economic status and assures it will not be damaged in the process, where the left doesn't have a clue as to the impact on economic issues when it sends in a bill.

[Exterminator]

I think the difference between the Right and the Left on environmental issues is that the right is couples in our economic status and assures it will not be damaged in the process, where the left doesn't have a clue as to the impact on economic issues when it sends in a bill.

Economic status won't mean shit once you idiots have succeeded in destroying the planet.