Greater Greater Washington

Sustainability


Divestment helps local governments fight climate change

Climate change is real and happening faster than scientists ever predicted, posing devastating impacts for our low-lying and vulnerable region. So how are local governments responding to the crisis?


A simulation of extreme flooding from 1936 Potomac flood. Screenshot from Vimeo.

Activists want DC to divest, or take its money out of fossil fuel stocks as one way to demonstrate its commitment to urgent action. Tomorrow, DC Divest will hold an event to educate people about local climate impacts and the local movement for divestment.

The scientific consensus around climate change has been strengthening over the past two decades, while forecasts have only worsened. For the DC region, a 2008 report from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments predicts sea-level rise up to a foot by 2030 and over three feet by 2095.

As if our summers weren't hot enough for local farmers or our already-struggling Metro infrastructure, scientists predict temperatures will continue to rise up to 9.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2095. While we narrowly missed the worst of the path of Superstorm Sandy, various studies indicate more extreme weather events like last summer's derecho storm will only become more frequent and intense.

In addition, a recent report from the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin predicts climate change could cut water flows in the river by 35% by 2040. The Potomac currently supplies 75% of the region's drinking water.

Summary of climate impacts for the DC region from MWCOG 2008 report.
Summary of climate impacts in the DC region from MWCOG's 2008 report.

Needless to say, climate change poses a major threat to our region's ability to provide very basic necessities like fresh drinking water, protection from flooding and disasters, and access to fresh, local food. Despite the scientific community's certainty and frightening predictions, a mixture of climate denialism, vested special interests, and inertia have combined to stall practically any action on Capitol Hill thus far.

However, the story at the local and regional level tends to be brighter. Local governments, which face less pressure from the fossil fuel lobby, are making some important steps towards lowering emissions from their energy, transportation, and land use sectors. DC recently completed its Sustainable DC Plan, with a goal of making DC the healthiest, greenest, and most livable city in the United States.

Earlier this year, the District got started by signing a contract to use wind power for 100 percent of the city's electricity needs. Meanwhile, Governor O'Malley recently announced several ambitious goals for Maryland, including reducing emissions 25% by the year 2020.

Across the river in Virginia, action has been slower. But just a few days ago, mayors fed up with their gubernatorial candidates debating the very existence of climate change gathered to tell them to stop debating and start taking action to protect the state's many low-lying communities. "The fact of the matter is, we've got rising waters," said Republican state senator John Watkins. "We've got recurrent flooding. There are more 100-year storms in the last 15 years than we've ever seen."

While local activists applaud local and state jurisdictions' climate plans, it's clear that we are still doing too little, too slowly to truly address a crisis of this magnitude. So in addition to the very practical and important solutions proposed thus far, local activists have begun encouraging local elected officials and institutions to take a moral stand and "put their money where their mouth is" by taking their investments out of any holdings in fossil fuel companies.

The strategy harkens back to the successful campaigns to end apartheid in South Africa and to urge universities and institutions to divest from the tobacco industry when it became clear smoking was killing people.

Fossil fuel divestment advocates around the nation argue we shouldn't be investing in companies with business plans that rely on wrecking our planet, and that divestment sends a signal that if fossil fuel companies won't get serious about climate change, it's time to leave the industry behind. Here in our region, advocates in DC and Montgomery County have recently started serious campaigns to encourage their elected officials to divest.

Activists in the District are still working to get full disclosure on the amount of the city's retirement funds, General Fund, and Health and Annuity Trust invested in fossil fuel companies. They already know that about 3.3% of the Health and Annuity Trust is invested in fossil fuels. Research shows that that moving the District's modest investments in fossil fuel companies to more socially responsible funds is a very low-risk proposition, and could actually be more profitable.

So far, several DC councilmembers have given DC Divest organizers a warm response. Just a few days ago, Phil Mendelson introduced the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act of 2013 with several co-sponsors.

We need to move swiftly to cut emissions locally if we want a chance at maintaining a livable and competitive region. This includes shifting to wind and solar, and energy efficient buildings. It also includes many of the ideas frequently discussed in this blog, including investing in transit, not more highways, and in the compact, walkable, bikeable, and transit-oriented neighborhoods that all contribute to reducing transportation emissions.

If local governments have already committed to these principles and to action on climate change, investing in fossil fuels runs directly counter to their stated goals. Given the negligible fiscal impact, divestment ought to be a no-brainer for local governments and institutions eager to preserve a hospitable region for future generations.

To learn more about climate change's impact to our region, and the movement to divest from fossil fuels, visit DC Divest and attend their upcoming "Draw the Line DC" event tomorrow at 2pm at Lincoln Park in Capitol Hill. Organizers will have displays illustrating future sea-level rise along the DC waterfront and other impacts we will face if we fail to act.

Kelly Blynn was a co-founder of 350.org and is currently the Next Generation of Transit Campaign Manager for the Coalition for Smarter Growth. However, the views expressed here are her own.

Kelly Blynn is the Campaign Manager for the Coalition for Smarter Growth's Next Generation of Transit Campaign. A former international campaigner at the climate change organization 350.org, she believes in thinking globally while acting locally, and she is now working hard to organize with communities for sustainable and equitable transportation in the Washington, DC region. 

Comments

Add a comment »

can we be honest and just say the District (and many other consumers) aren't buying windpower, they are buying renewal energy credits.

for those interested, here is a dashboard of wind power available:

http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm/renewable-dashboard/wind-power-graph.aspx

by charlie on Sep 20, 2013 10:24 am • linkreport

How is divesting going to change the actions of these companies? Won't someone else just buy what is being sold, thereby leaving the course of said companies unchanged?

And what happens when a municipality moves their investment from a more secure fossil fuel-based company to a more risky green company that winds up going bust (ie, Solyndra) or has lower financial returns? Is it just too-bad-so-sad for the municipality and its residents?

by NatsFanY2K on Sep 20, 2013 10:34 am • linkreport

Nice start would be placing electric car-charging stations around the District Building and only allowing plug-in parking. I'm tired of seeing all the councilmembers gas-guzzling cars parked there. Why can't any of them use transit (or bike)?

by Tom Coumaris on Sep 20, 2013 10:40 am • linkreport

1) Eighth paragraph about DC's wind power: not 100% of the City's power but 100% of the City government's power.

2) I'm unclear how divestment is likely to affect climate change.

3) Doesn't the government have greater powers they could use? Like higher utility bills with the extra money going to lower carbon fuels (or just to R&D)? Or a carbon tax?

4) Maybe it isn't a good idea to mess around with City pension funds. Taxpayers are on the hook to make up any under-funding caused by poor performance.

5) To some extent, nearly all companies use fossil fuels. Where do you draw the line?

by WRD on Sep 20, 2013 10:42 am • linkreport

Climate change is real but there are so many ways in which causes such as what the author advocates for are short-sighted, misinformed and not in the best interests of tax payers.

Even if the US engaged in some sort of large scale effort to build a massive amount of wind, solar and other renewable power plants there would still be a huge amount of on-demand power plants required, preferably from natural gas and nuclear.

by Fitz on Sep 20, 2013 10:55 am • linkreport

"I'm unclear how divestment is likely to affect climate change."

As someone old enough to remember the South African divestment campaign, they tryied to get companies like say, IBM to not sell computers to the govt of SA - if IBMy continued to do business with SA, the campaign tried to get govts, universities, etc to divest the stock in IBM. Corps dont like to have their stock excluded from the portfolios of major institutional investors, so it was SOME real pressure. Though many institutions compromised by asking corps not to boycott SA, but to follow certain standards in their investments called the Sullivan principles. Im not sure if there is consensus on the impact of the divestment campaign.

I also would suggest getting US corps to not do business in SA was far easier than getting ExxonMobil out of the hydrocarbon business. See big Tobacco for ex.

"3) Doesn't the government have greater powers they could use? Like higher utility bills with the extra money going to lower carbon fuels (or just to R&D)? Or a carbon tax?"

There is no consensus for a national carbon tax. Some states are trying to create regional carbon markets, but I suspect those have limitations.

"4) Maybe it isn't a good idea to mess around with City pension funds. Taxpayers are on the hook to make up any under-funding caused by poor performance."

It would mean some narrowing of the diversity of the investment portfolio. But probably not much.

"5) To some extent, nearly all companies use fossil fuels. Where do you draw the line?"

My understanding it was aimed at hydrocarbon producers, not at users. Personally I would aim it at the narrower subset of hydrocarbon producers that have been particularly active in funding the denial campaigns.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 20, 2013 11:13 am • linkreport

I would not count on a strategy of divestment in hydrocarbon companies. As I said above, this is not like South Africa.

I would focus divestment on a handful of egregious denial funders. I would use the divestment campaign to attract attention to the issue.

I would continue to push for cap and trade or carbon tax at the national level, and alternate command approaches until a carbon price is implemented. At the state level I would support statewide goals and regional cap and trade schemes, as far as possible. for localities (note DC is both state and locality) I would continue to focus on local initiatives to lower GHGs, such as building standards, transportation changes, smart growth, etc.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 20, 2013 11:27 am • linkreport

Divestment isn’t primarily an economic strategy, but a moral and political one. Just like in the struggle for Civil Rights here in America or the fight to end Apartheid in South Africa, the more we can make climate change a deeply moral issue, the more we will push society towards action. We need to make it clear that if it’s wrong to wreck the planet, than it’s also wrong to profit from that wreckage. At the same time, divestment builds political power by forcing our nation’s most prominent institutions and individuals (many of whom sit on university boards) to choose which side of the issue they are on. Divestment sparks a big discussion and — as we’re already seeing in this campaign — gets prominent media attention, moving the case for action forward.

At the same time, there are certain economic impacts. The top 500 or so university endowments hold nearly $400 billion (1). That’s a huge number–and getting all of that money out of coal, oil and gas will make a pretty big splash. Add in the big state pension funds, and church, synagogue and mosque investments, and we’re well on our way to making ExxonMobil, Shell and Peabody sweat.

Divestment is also a strategy to protect the District's pension funds. Reports by Carbon Tracker, HSBC, the London School of Economics, Goldman Sachs and others point more and more to the "carbon bubble." Which is an acknowledgement by these financial institutions that fossil fuels are significantly over valued, by as much as 40-60%. When a major country or countries take significant action to curb carbon emissions, these stock prices will plummet, as fossil fuel companies, like Exxon, are valued on resources they have not yet been extracted.

by Evan Feeney on Sep 20, 2013 11:34 am • linkreport

Why not do parking day over the weekend? Who has a lot of free time from 9-3 on a Friday?

by BTA on Sep 20, 2013 11:38 am • linkreport

And that would be the wrong thread sorry!

by BTA on Sep 20, 2013 11:38 am • linkreport

Given: 1) the chronic underfunding of local government pensions; 2) the challenges local governments already face in balancing revenues and spending; and 3) the numerous problems that local governments can address directly and effectively, it would be a huge mistake to make "fighting global warming" or "divestment from carbon investments" a priority for local and state governments.

And that's leaving aside all the science suggesting that this post's discussion of the costs of anthropocentric global warming are likely overstated. The new IPCC report is expected to lower the top end of its warming projections. Fifteen years of stable worldwide temperatures since 1997 also suggest that current atmospheric models overstate the extent to which carbon emissions cause the globe to warm. And much recent science suggests that, although global warming will cause changes and disruptions, there will be net positives to agricultural productivity and human health from warming.

by Bitter Brew on Sep 20, 2013 11:51 am • linkreport

"Divestment isn’t primarily an economic strategy, but a moral and political one."

In which case it need not be aimed at all hydrocarbon producers, but at the ones most active in denial. You still get the publicity focus benefits, with less loss of diversity to portfolios.

Bitter - your statement about worldwide temps is about surface temps - the evidence is that more of the warming is going into the deep oceans - but as they warm, eventually surface temps will go up again even faster. You are misstating the science. As for the net positives, you are reading Bjorn Lomborg and his cherrypicked factoids, aren't you? Its expected agricultural productivity will decline uner the most likely case. He has also not modeled human health in detail - just cited that more people die in cold weather disasters than in hot weather disasters - he did not address the impact of warming on the spread of disease for example. And all of that assumes the IPCC most likely case - 350.org, like many of us, is concerned about the possibility (quite real, if not most likely) that feedback effects will be worse than expected and we will see much more rapid warming.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 20, 2013 12:02 pm • linkreport

On the con side:

* Divestment in this case is not likely to have the kind of impact that divestment in South Africa had. In SA's case, the size of the divestment was very material to SA's economy because the US, Europe and Japan all eclipse the size of the SA economy individually and moreso together. Divestment from fossil fuel companies is more akin to divestment from tobacco companies, which while it was a moral victory, did not have a huge impact on the finances of tobacco companies. Only a small percentage of university and city investments are currently in fossil fuel production companies.

* The divestment strategy doesn't have a winning end-game. With South Africa, the strategy was to stop apartheid. With tobacco companies the possible strategy was for them to admit their product was bad for you. What's the strategy for fossil fuel divestment? To stop the production of all fossil fuels? To reduce it to a certain unspecified "safe" level? To implement a carbon tax (if that's the case, you're pressuring the wrong people)?

The pros:

* Divestment costs nothing and may be profitable. If the global warming predictions are correct, fossil fuel production companies have a deeply flawed business model and they represent terrible investments. Altruism and morality aside, they're flat-out a losing investment if global warming pans out as predicted. In that case, divestment is simply smart money management.

* Divestment has a non-zero affect. Divestment of fossil fuel production stocks decreases their share price, increasing the cost of capital for those companies. The higher their cost of capital, the less money they have to invest in extracting more fossil fuels out of the ground. So, divestment leads to some non-zero reduction in the quantity of fossil fuels extracted (and thus consumed).

And what happens when a municipality moves their investment from a more secure fossil fuel-based company to a more risky green company that winds up going bust (ie, Solyndra) or has lower financial returns?

Divestment doesn't mean shifting the money to green companies. It means taking the money invested in stocks of fossil fuel producers and re-investing that money in everything else in the stock market (technology companies, health care, consumer staples, banks, etc.).

Of course, some people might argue that taking money invested in Exxon and putting it into Bank of America doesn't really improve the morality of your investments. That said, if global warming predictions are accurate, it does improve the financial return on your investment.

by Falls Church on Sep 20, 2013 12:12 pm • linkreport

Divestment is window dressing. What local governments need to do is reduce demand for fossil fuels, and that means increasing mass transit and bicycling, encouraging use of solar, planting trees, green roofs, or painted white roofs, and similar types of actions.

by kob on Sep 20, 2013 1:25 pm • linkreport

Why can't any of them use transit (or bike)?

Tommy Wells does. I seem to recall a photo of his bike parked in his parking space (which is, humorously, illegal in DC).

by David C on Sep 20, 2013 1:55 pm • linkreport

can we be honest and just say the District (and many other consumers) aren't buying windpower, they are buying renewal energy credits.

That may be more accurate, but I don't think it is more honest. There is nothing wrong with saying we're buying wind power in these cases.

by David C on Sep 20, 2013 1:55 pm • linkreport

Fifteen years of stable worldwide temperatures since 1997 also suggest that current atmospheric models overstate the extent to which carbon emissions cause the globe to warm.

No, it suggsts that the models do not handle El Nino/Southern Oscillation cycle well. The models capture the multi-decadal trend reasonably well. No one ever predicted that every five-year period will be warmer than the previous period. No one ever said that greenhouse gases will stop inter-annual variability. Rather, we have a warming trend superimposed on decade-to-decade variation, whichb means that sometimes temperatures will go down from year to year. But the overall trend is up.

by JimT on Sep 20, 2013 2:47 pm • linkreport

Walker: Unlike global surface and atmospheric temperature measurements, there is wide disagreement in the research over oceanic temperature trends: the "deep oceans" conclusion you reference is a debated one.

Likewise, there is huge variation in the science regarding agricultural productivity and temperature feedback effects. I've read over a dozen studies discussing the agricultural implications of global climate change, and I disagree with your conclusion that declining productivity is the "most likely case." I think there's good reason to believe that we are more likely to see declining agricultural productivity from, e.g., heavy-metals pollution in China and shifting tastes in developed countries towards organic and locally-produced foods than we are from warmer temperatures.

As to Bjorn Lomborg, it's ironic that you mention "cherry-picking," given that ThinkProgress's climate coverage, to which you link, does exactly that. Separate and apart from his conclusions, however, his most valuable service is highlighting that we have choices in how we spend our money, and it is far from self-evident that investments of time, money, and political capital in the service of limiting climate change are well-spent.

by Bitter Brew on Sep 20, 2013 3:07 pm • linkreport

And that's leaving aside all the science suggesting that this post's discussion of the costs of anthropocentric global warming are likely overstated.

I've reread this post twice and I don't know know what you're talking about. This post doesn't ever discuss any costs, so how could they possibly be overstated?

by David C on Sep 20, 2013 3:19 pm • linkreport

Fifteen years of stable worldwide temperatures since 1997 also suggest...

Uh, no.

The only thing it suggests is that people will mistake (intentionally or not, maliciously or not) noise in the data for the signal:

by Alex B. on Sep 20, 2013 3:24 pm • linkreport

"Likewise, there is huge variation in the science regarding agricultural productivity and temperature feedback effects. I've read over a dozen studies discussing the agricultural implications of global climate change, and I disagree with your conclusion that declining productivity is the "most likely case.""

IIUC thats the current position of the IPCC - whose work you brought into the conversation.

"As to Bjorn Lomborg, it's ironic that you mention "cherry-picking," given that ThinkProgress's climate coverage, to which you link, does exactly that."

At least I cited my source. And Ive read climate progress for some time, and seen mostly excellent work there. And I only cite them where I think they are making a strong case.

" Separate and apart from his conclusions, however, his most valuable service is highlighting that we have choices in how we spend our money,"

I think thats obvious.

" and it is far from self-evident that investments of time, money, and political capital in the service of limiting climate change are well-spent."

Its not self evident, but think the evidence that it is is very strong (And since there is such a variety of potential steps to limit climate change, its hard to see how they could ALL represent poor choices, if warming is at all a net negative). And I do not find his arguments convincing. In particular I found his most recent column, which appears to be what you based your comment on, to be particularly weak.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 20, 2013 3:31 pm • linkreport

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

Climatic conditions strongly affect water-borne diseases and diseases transmitted through insects, snails or other cold blooded animals.

Changes in climate are likely to lengthen the transmission seasons of important vector-borne diseases and to alter their geographic range. For example, climate change is projected to widen significantly the area of China where the snail-borne disease schistosomiasis occurs5.

Malaria is strongly influenced by climate. Transmitted by Anopheles mosquitoes, malaria kills almost 1 million people every year – mainly African children under five years old. The Aedes mosquito vector of dengue is also highly sensitive to climate conditions. Studies suggest that climate change could expose an additional 2 billion people to dengue transmission by the 2080s6.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 20, 2013 3:33 pm • linkreport

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2008/03/pdf/cline.pdf

by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 20, 2013 3:38 pm • linkreport

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/quotesskepenv.htm

by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm • linkreport

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/16/lomborgs-threadbare-techno-optimism-resurfaces/

Lomborg makes it sound as if trends like higher nighttime temperatures and more heavy rainfall events are favorable. (Less temperature extremes! More drinking water!) In fact higher nighttime temperatures have been found to reduce crop yields, and also make heat waves more dangerous in that vulnerable people – the elderly, the very young and the sick - can’t find respite even to sleep.

Heavy rainfall events aren’t necessarily helping with water shortages either. When rain falls all at once, much of it is lost as runoff, and resulting floods can actually contaminate drinking water supplies.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 20, 2013 4:06 pm • linkreport

Bitter: Actually the deep oceans warming data is based on direct measurement at thousands of points in oceans around the world and was the subject of detailed testimony presented by Dr. James McCarthy before the Environment and Public Works Committee last year I believe.

by luckybiker on Sep 21, 2013 3:09 pm • linkreport

Questions for Bitter Brew:

1) How old is the Earth?

a) 4.5 billion years

b) 4,017 years

2) What caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?

a) A bolide impact near the present Yucatan peninsula

b) The Deluge

by Frank IBC on Sep 21, 2013 9:22 pm • linkreport

The 10-15 year pause was not accurately predicted by these high-confidence global models. If the current pause's rate of warming were to continue, the planet will fall far short of those "high confidence" temperature projections from 2008. Long term climate prediction is as easy as long term economic prediction...there are too many variables.

by mrwx on Sep 22, 2013 2:45 pm • linkreport

If the current pause's rate of warming were to continue, the planet will fall far short of those "high confidence" temperature projections from 2008. Long term climate prediction is as easy as long term economic prediction...there are too many variables.

Well, that's true, if your assumption is correct. The long term predictions could be right, or they could be too conservative or they could be overstating things. In such a case, any option is a calculated gamble.

There's an old saying "plan for the worse and hope for the best" and I think that applies here. If we plan with the pessimistic assumptions in mind then we would eventually move away from hydrocarbon power and into a combination of renewable energy and nuclear energy. If it turns out we've over-reacted then we would have spent some extra money getting to some place that we're going to have to get to anyway and one with a bunch of other benefits (less pollution, energy security, etc...) too. But, we won't have followed the most efficient path there. If, instead we assume the best and make few steps to fix the situation, things can get very bad. And they can get bad very suddenly.

Unfortunatly, that is a hard sell, because climate modelling is a very complex thing and we don't like complex things. Human beings like to make simplifying assumptions about phenomena. It is not even a matter of simple preference; it is a matter of practicality. Even engineers prefer to analyze linear systems described by at most two equations with two unknowns. Because the math for that can normally be solved with high-school mathematics.

I dated a girl who had to analyze a linear system described by 35 or so equations with about 35 unknowns, and if you wanted to calculate it all out on paper, it would have taken a very long time. It took only a few minutes on a computer, But the answers were wrong due to round-off error, even though the computations were calculated in double-precision on a very nice machine. And that was a linear system.

Next up in difficulty are very nearly linear systems. Newton figured out how to compute planetary orbits. He had to invent the calculus to do it. And he could compute the orbit of a planet around the sun, assuming there was only one sun (valid in our solar system) and one planet and no moons (not true, but good enough for most of his purposes). Computing the orbits of the Sun, Earth, and our Moon, though resists an analytic solution.

Now, when it comes to non-linear systems, things get much worse. The simplest non-linear system I know of is the common mousetrap. Consider the response of that as a function of the pressure applied to the trigger. For extremely low pressures, increasing the pressure on that makes no noticeable change. But once a certain pressure is exceeded, an extremely rapid change occurs that cannot be stopped by releasing the pressure, and the consequences for the mouse are usually fatal. And that is a system with only two non-lineqarities: the state of the mousetrap, and the life of the mouse.

Now the equations of climate and weather (I distinguish between the two as follows: climate is what you expect, weather is what you get), if you actually want to predict it even if you know all the equations required, the coefficients and exponents, and all the data at some point (all invalid assumptions) it is fantastically difficult. But some things are known about them. We know some of the equations. We have some ideas of some of the coefficients and exponents, we know some of the data at any time. What we know for sure is that this is an extremely non-linear system. So we have two kinds of problems in making predictions.

1.) There are too many equations, so we cannot solve them as a practical matter on a computer, although they might be solvable analytically if they were linear but they are not.

2.) The equations, even if we had them all, are too non-linear, so they cannot be solved analytically: they can, even in principle, only be solved numerically.
And due to the non-linearities, we can expect very rapid changes sometimes, with extreme changes in the values-solutions.

In the current situation, we do not even know what the trigger points are anymore than the mouse knows where they are on mousetraps. The mouse may have already triggered the thing and is just waiting for the bar to come down and break his neck. The only option the mouse has, even in principle, is to get out of there before the otherwise inevitable occurs. And he has very little time in which to do it. We do not know if we have exceeded the environmental tolerance already or not. And we have nowhere else to go.

And the majority of politicians and powerful individuals are too ignorant, or too cynical, or too immoral, to even care.

I had a professor in college who pointed out that we lived in a very weird window of human history. We were smart enough that if something (a comet or asteroid) were coming at us and going to wipe us out, we would be able to see it coming. But we weren't smart enough to do a single thing about it but watch.

So the fact that the models are off does not scare me, what scares me is that the bar may already be coming down to get us, and we just don't know it yet. And when we do, it will be too late.

by David C on Sep 22, 2013 11:11 pm • linkreport

Lost me at the 1st lie in the opening "Climate change is real and happening faster than scientists ever predicted." Why go about completing making up a false statement? You could write something about the issue but no reason to do that

by Al Gore on Sep 26, 2013 4:44 pm • linkreport

My guess would be that it is very very unlikely that a) the statement about climate change being real is NOT true and b) that Vice President Gore actually wrote it. In any event, I have always been baffled by those that would oppose taking action, because the actions needed, energy efficiency, renewables, demand side controls, more efficiency use of the grid, modernization of the electricity sector, for example, all have huge benefits in and of themselves.

by luckybiker on Sep 26, 2013 4:57 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or

Support Us