Petitions are so easy in the Age of the Internet

Am I right? Huh? Huh?
It used to be if you wanted to express your opinion to a member of Congress, you actually had to call or write or send smoke signals/carrier pigeons, sometimes smoke signals and carrier pigeons in unison. And then some aid used math mumbo jumbo to say, "Well, if 15,000 people in our 55 million person state sent in concerns, this equates to being important to 56.7896% of the population - let's do this to be re-elected." Now, you just type in your email address and zip code and wham bam someone else does the work for you.

For example: During the Bush Administration, the Bush-appointed head of the EPA blocked a waiver submitted by CA to increase the regulation on auto emissions. Because CA had it's Clear Air Act in place prior to the EPA, it has had the right to enforce regulations on air pollution that are more strict than EPA standards. Once CA enacts such a law, any other state in the Union can then follow suit if they so choose. For 30 years, this worked fine. Until the most recent regulation was blocked. The EPA is now considering allowing the waiver through, and letting CA enact stricter auto emission regulations. A law 13 other states have said they will also follow. If you do the math, it would require 40% of all future cars in America to be less polluting!!!

The EPA will be hold a public hearing in Washington DC tomorrow. I know, I know. Why do I always tell you this at the last minute? But you can be there, sort of. Follow this like to The We Campaign, and enter your petition. Add you name, and your weight of being a US voter, to help save the planet. You don't even have to leave your seat :)

Clean coal? For realz?

A little something from the This Is Reality campaign.

Climate Soap Box

Because climate change will effect everyone.

This image comes from a post on one of my favorite blogs, Climate Progress. It demonstrates the 4 possible scenarios we face with climate change.
Because it seems hard to read, let me summarize the 4 scenarios:

1. Early and rapid decline starting in 2010. 47% decreases in current emissions levels. 2.1-2.8C temperature rise by 2100. NOTICE: this still results in a global rise in temperature
2. Early but slow decline starting in 2010. Emissions to 1990 levels by 2050. 2.9-3.8C temperature rise by 2100.
3. Late and slow decline starting in 2030. 76% increase in emissions by 2050. 4-5.2C temperature rise by 2100.
4. Business as usual. 137% increase in emissions by 2050. 5.5-7.1C temperature rise by 2100.

And as it is so eloquently put:

The consequences of 5.5°C warming by 2100, which Hadley says is "likely" on our current emissions path are all but unimaginable — mass extinction, devastating ocean acidification, brutal summer-long heat waves, rapidly rising sea levels, widespread desertification. But they are rarely studied or articulated by scientists who can’t imagine humanity would be so stupid as to let this happen. I have tried to piece them together from the scientific literature.

More to come!
[Climate Progress]

*Glug, glug*

Melting glaciers are bad. Especially for people who hate the shore, beach, coastline, or whatever you are comfortable calling it. NASA released data showing that since 2003, 2 trillion tons of ice have melted from landlocked glaciers. That's 2 followed by this many zeros 000,000,000,000.

For one last number-- this has added 1/5 of an inch to the world's ocean. THE WORLD'S OCEAN. Like the 71% of stuff that covers the planet, the whole thing, increased by 1/5 of an inch in 5 years.