Opinion: Why climate change matters to Michigan

 

 

The Michigan presidential primary results earlier this year bear out something that’s hard to admit – climate change does not matter to many people in Michigan.

The issue of human-caused climate change never seemed to gain traction as a central issue in the campaign. Although the Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders endorsed action to curb climate change, Republican candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are on record as denying that climate change exists.

With a roughly 50/50 split of Democratic and Republican votes in the primary, the results imply that climate change was a compelling issue for only half the population of Michigan. This finding is in line with a Yale study in 2014, which revealed that only half of Michigan respondents believed that global warming is caused mostly by human activities and that the effects are harmful. These results are in contrast to a much larger majority of climate scientists who maintain that climate change is human-caused and harmful.

Unfortunately, the issue of climate change has been framed by politics and what people believe. In science, it’s not about what you believe; it’s what the facts tell you. The facts point to the real danger of excessive greenhouse gas levels and the urgency of addressing climate change.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; this is the first thing we learn in any meteorology or climatology class. The undeniable fact in any climate debate is that global carbon dioxide levels continue to increase. Excessive carbon dioxide levels from burning fossil fuels have caused global temperature to rise. Global temperature rise has led to many negative impacts. Climate change is a real issue, even in Michigan.

Yet skepticism remains. Skeptics like to rely on “talking points.” A popular talking point is “the climate’s always changing.” In actuality, the weather is always changing; climate has been relatively stable up until now. Skeptics who are able to distinguish between weather and climate will say “there has been no change in climate.” Climate change is often subtle and, in fact, can be easily masked in the Midwest.

Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan.

Like what you’re reading in Bridge? Please consider a donation to support our work!

We are a nonprofit Michigan news site focused on issues that impact all citizens. In an era of click bait and biased news, we focus on taking the time to learn both sides of a story before we post it. Bridge stories are always free, but our work costs money. If our journalism helps you understand and love Michigan more, please consider supporting our work. It takes just a moment to donate here.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

Mark
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 6:51am
There is NO such thing as Man Made Climate Change. No model has ever proven this non-sense. Should we protect the environment, limit pollution, and use our natural resources wisely? Absolutely! No Major Environmental has been or will be caused by Greenhouse Gases. However, there is an economic catastrophe happening because of the foolishness the author believes in and the waste of taxpayers money to support this unproven, UNPROVEN, unproven claim.
Vincent Caruso
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 10:05am
And I would add that the earth looks very flat to me so it must be! FlatEarthClub.com
sam melvin
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 10:56am
no climate change, No bees dyeing.no frog, air pollution , more people on inhalers, more people diabetic...people
Russ
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 11:08am
Typical retort but predictable. Again, show the proof that the bees and frogs and inhalers and diabetes are CAUSED by climate change first of all, and then that such climate change was CAUSED by human activity. I won't hold my breath...and since the air ain't so bad I won't need too!
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 1:34pm
As I mentioned in the article, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. This really is the first thing we learn in any meteorology or climatology class. Libraries have numerous books on weather and climate. I suggest you check some out to get a better understanding of the sources of greenhouse gases and their role in climate change. As a scientist, I have to keep an open mind and be receptive to facts. A scientist says, “I could be wrong”. An agendist says, “I’m always right”.
Jeanette
Wed, 05/18/2016 - 9:03am
If your science was geology, you would know that carbon dioxide levels were estimated to be 20 times higher 500 million years ago than they are today. Man did not walk the earth 500 million years ago. Levels have dropped over the millennia, but have again risen. All before man existed.
Wed, 05/18/2016 - 12:22pm
I worked with geologists quite extensively when I was involved in Antarctic research. You are going back to the Cambrian period to prove a point. This goes back to "Gondwanaland". Temperatures were much higher then (proving my point). It is questionable whether the earth would even be habitable for human beings.
Jeanette
Wed, 05/18/2016 - 2:49pm
No, it does not prove your point. Those who choose to use 200 years of questionable data to state a hypothesis is proven are not using the full extent of available scientific data. If you are truly a scientist open to bring proven wrong, you would admit it is not certain that man has impacted any type of climate change.
Wed, 05/18/2016 - 4:11pm
Jeanette, you haven't given me a reason why the past two hundred years of carbon dioxide data are questionable.
Jeanette
Wed, 05/18/2016 - 5:25pm
Warming trends began in the 1700's and has continued a steady increase interspersed with some cooling periods. The emission of C02 by humans was barely measurable until 1850. Humans then began emitting a great deal more carbon dioxide beginning in 1945. If the increase in global temperature is directly linked to human emission of carbon dioxide, we would see an exponential increase from 1945 forward, rather than a steady increase from 1700 forward. Also, the increase of C02 historically has lagged behind temperature increases. The global warming that occurred to recede the glaciers in North America, and resulted in the creation of the Great Lakes saw a rose in C02 levels approximately 800 years after the warming period began.
Sun, 05/22/2016 - 3:33pm
Thanks, Jeanette, for the information. As a scientist, I would like to examine the CO2 lag more closely. If you have some references, please forward the information to me. Thanks!
Nuclear Hank
Sat, 05/21/2016 - 8:15am
Jim I am one of over 30 thousand scientists who you call "deniers" but I do believe that the Holocaust happened. I have spent 5 years canvassing some 40 US Senate and House energy staffers who advise their senators and congressman on energy issues as well as the Climate Scientist from the National Research Defense Council (NRDC). None could come close to answering the question, usually after a lecture on the EVILS of CO2, of "approximately, what is the % concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? Senator Levin's staffer said she was sure it was 40%! The NRDC climate Scientist admitted that she did not know. I then gave her my 15 minute lecture on green house gases and informed her on the largest one-water vapor-clouds and many other FACTS. She comment many times that "I never heard that before". I asked her to be a critical thinker and not believe me but spend the time to read both sides of the issue(s) and then form an opinion. I'm sure that you would rather scare everyone by quoting the millions/billion of tons of CO2 that man adds to the atmosphere yearly(most weight is from oxygen not carbon not that that matters) without reviewing the carbon cycle or the MUCH higher amount given off and removed by the natural sources on land and in the oceans or that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 0.039% (390 molecules per every million molecules supposedly reflecting all that radiant heat right back to the earth no matter what NASA studies to the contrary say). CO2 IS A TRACE GAS! We are not headed toward a Venus atmosphere (95% CO2) as Dr Tyson would have you believe as he did in Cosmos without any of the facts I provide. How the Hxxx do 390 out of 1 million molecules cause this drastic affect and how do you think we could control CO2 if we removed all of man's input and still would not see a drop in the level of CO2. BTW water vapor is the green house gas that contributes over 85% of the green house effect and thank God it does otherwise we would be blocks of ice. There are so many facets to Climate Change not covered by you or the United Nations IPCC that involve the earth and sun as well as interaction with other planets long term variations that you seem to ignore as well as the 18+ years of no warming (sans the recent questionable adjustments of past data). The Antarctic ice is at all time highs while the Arctic ice sheet has recovered from it's 2007 minimums. The Great Lakes froze over for two recent winters at records not seen since 1976 (cycle?). Yet the US Senate Democrats met on the coldest day of 2014 to have an all night talk-a-thon on Global Warming. Senator Booker from NJ even told the story of when he was 17 years old and just got his license and the first trip he took was to drive to Hawaii! I called and asked if he took the bridge or the tunnel but an AGW enthusiast like you might believe that the Pacific Ocean was frozen over back then. Geologic history shows that we are much more likely to suffer a return of a mile thick glacier in Michigan rather then the oceans rising due to an over heated earth. Pray inform us Jim how much have the oceans risen since the end of the last ice age and how much have they risen in the past year or century. Which islands have been washed over-poof please? Why no hurricanes to speak of compared to a few decades ago? Compare tornadoes today to a few decades ago plz! Do you receive or have you received any government grants?
Mon, 05/23/2016 - 4:20pm
The atmosphere is composed primarily of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon gases (about 98%). None of these are greenhouse gases. Our climate is controlled by “minor gases”. The levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are lower than the levels of water vapor. However, the “greenhouse effect” of carbon dioxide can be the same order of magnitude as water vapor. As carbon dioxide levels increase, the “greenhouse effect” of carbon dioxide can exceed that of water vapor. I have not seen the 85% greenhouse gas effect of water vapor in the scientific literature. If you could forward a reference for this number, I would appreciate it. Geological history does favor a very gradual return to ice age conditions. However, a rapid increase in carbon dioxide has the capability of major climate disruption. Hurricanes may not necessarily become more numerous as the oceans warm. It takes more that a warm ocean to create a hurricane. Climate change may have contributed to the destructive force of some “anomalous” hurricanes: Katrina (2005), Sandy (2012), and the Joaquin combined-low complex (2015). Each one has characteristics that make them different from the usual hurricanes. Climate for Tomorrow is not tax-exempt and does not receive grants.
Nuclear Hank
Mon, 05/23/2016 - 8:35pm
Jim You provided your answers to only some of my questions and asked for references on water vapor being responsible for up to 85% of the green house affect. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarrative... http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconcepti... http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html The estimates causes, mechanics and affect on global warming vary greatly with each post but all are filled with "possibly", "may", etc. The models are simplistic and therefore, in my scientific judgement, grossly inconclusive. I see estimates of the affect of water vapor varying from 60% to 95% in the articles above. I like statistics rather then "trust me I am the expert" as you seem to have provided in your article so I was drawn to the last link. Let me know what you think of it. I continue to question the common sense of assigning the "dooming of the world" to a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere causing the tremendous reflection of long wave length energy from the earth back to the earth by as few as 390 molecules per every million molecules. Even NASA revised an earlier study recently concerning the number of reflections by atmospheric CO2 back toward the earth admitting that the number now measured escaping into space is significantly higher by current measurement and considered this a prime reason for the lack of global warming for two decades as measured by satellite monitors. ( https://www.yahoo.com/news/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-ala...) BTW satellite monitors also drastically reduces sea level change. UNIPCC models seem bound to flawed terrestrial monitors for both sea level and temperature-WHY?. CO2 has varied greatly for 5 billion years and the causes are almost always natural. We are still warming from the last ice age and the carbon cycle of earth and oceans are greatly affected by this warming. CO2 is released by the oceans as the water warms. You must be aware of this? You must be aware of the Carbon cycle and the GIGANTIC, OVERWHELMING amount of CO2 contributed to the atmosphere by the earth and oceans compared to man's contributions. BTW the CO2 does not all stay in the atmosphere and that is the point of a "cycle".
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 4:08pm
Thanks for the website links. I reviewed the information from the websites. There are other scientists who disagree with the conclusions. The best I can offer is to review the all the relevant material independently. This takes time.
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 9:44pm
So the author was right and he can rest his case.
Jacob Wheeler
Mon, 05/23/2016 - 4:55pm
Mark, good one. Are you in standup comedy?
Karen
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 9:43am
wow... how can you live in such denial. I am so tired of Americans living for today with no regard for future generations. We put off fixing roads, we put off fixing schools, we push for progress with no regard to the impact on nature and we as a group are ignorant to proven science. It is really amazing how short sighted we have become. I applaud this author and think these types of articles need to continue to be brought to the public in an effort to increase public awareness.
Mark
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 2:04pm
Karen- You are mixing a lot of apples with oranges in your response. Being good stewards of our natural resources does not mean there is man made global climate change. Nothing we as humans can do will affect the natural cycle climate.
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 6:36pm
I've heard a lot about this "natural cycle" theory. The fact is, we haven't had a purely natural cycle in carbon dioxide levels in 200 years. Scientists are convinced by the facts pointing to increased greenhouse gases causing planetary warming.
Sat, 05/21/2016 - 4:44pm
97 percent of scientists say yes.
Sun, 05/22/2016 - 3:17pm
I appreciate the discussion that all of the readers have contributed so far. I would like to respond to as many questions/comments as possible. Please understand that more elaborate questions require more elaborate and thoughtful answers. No single scientist knows absolutely everything there is to know about climate change. That’s why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was developed. Dr. Roy Spencer’s work discusses a single mechanism of climate change. The IPCC was charged with examining numerous mechanisms of climate change. Their conclusion was that climate change occurred primarily through the increase in human-made greenhouse gases. Their website is www.ipcc.ch .
Sat, 05/21/2016 - 3:12pm
The fossil fuel industry, with the help of think tanks like the Mackinac Center and the Heartland Institute, spend a lot of money preaching their propaganda that there is no climate change. And of course they do because for one reason is they have to keep their investors happy. It's interesting when you go to OpenSecrets how much money the fossil fuel industry gives to or politicians to keep this all going. And lots of people fall for it. There is a You Tube Video where the CEO of Exxon admitted that climate change was caused by human activity. They did nothing. And why not? We all know that answer. I have noticed that some deniers are folks that got their degrees years and years ago and can't seem to move on to what is the scientific evidence at this time. I would suggest googling Peter Sinclair who has some great easy to understand videos about climate change. Between our government and the deniers the fossil fuel industry can run the world. You will notice that there is little mention of oil spills and other disasters caused by these industries because the media has been bought as well. Remember that it took 50 years for the Tobacco Industry and the Government to admit that cigarettes caused cancer and other health problems. Always follow the money. Chasing Ice is a great documentary by the way.
Russ
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 10:12am
Climate has been relatively stable up to now? Really? So the ice age is a myth? The broad sweeping planetary warmth of the dinosaur days never happened? Was climate stable following the so-called Big Bang? it is an interesting ploy to try to separate climate from weather too. Which came first? Does weather drive the climate or vice versa? It would seem likely that climate drives the weather, therefore if the weather is unstable then would it not be logical to consider the climate as less than stable? Show the proof that man is causing the so-called climate change or shut up please!
sam melvin
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 10:58am
check out HARP...chemetrails
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 6:57pm
Climate has been relatively stable for the past 5,000-10,000 years. A stable climate has allowed civilization to flourish. Extreme levels in carbon dioxide could cause abrupt climate change, in a time span as little as 20 to 100 years. Previous abrupt changes have been documented in ice core samples.
Nuclear Hank
Sat, 05/21/2016 - 8:41am
Jim Plz provide what you consider extreme levels of CO2. Is it 20 to 25 times today's level as geologist state was the case 500 million years ago during the start of the giant fern forests or 5 to 8 times today's level during the dinosaur period 120 to 60 million years ago. Why not provide an accurate (no hockey stick plz) chart of CO2 over the past 5 billion years. Do you believe that we will soon become Venus at 95% as Dr. Niel Degrass Tyson seems to?
sam melvin
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 11:02am
hello go and drink Flint water....ooops coming.oops in Ann Arbor
Kevin Grand
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 12:58pm
Two questions for Mr. Lax: First, several years ago when the Great lakes were near their lowest levels (2013), people were claiming that this was all due to climate change and that it would take years to recover (if at all). Here we are in 2016, and the water levels in all of the Great Lakes have not only rebounded, but have increased (Lakes Michigan & Huron by 3 feet alone). Why was this climate change claim so wrong? Second, with all of the talk about the effects of Carbon Dioxide, would you care to address this inconsistency? "Water vapor is a critical component of Earth's climate systems. It is the Earth's primary greenhouse gas, trapping more heat than carbon dioxide. Movement of water vapor, and its associated latent heat of vaporization, is also responsible for about 50% of the transport of heat from the tropics to the poles. The movement of water vapor is also important for determining the amount of precipitation a region receives." Whenever anyone talks about AGW/climate change, Water vapor is ignored the majority of the time. Why?
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 1:54pm
There is a danger in claiming that every weather event is caused by climate change. Lake levels vary from year to year. Unless a very solid trend shows up, it would be hard to make a case for climate change. Water vapor is a critical component in climate. Water vapor is also quite variable. I’m not aware of any net increase or decrease in water vapor in the global atmosphere. Without a net change, the effect of water vapor would be neutral. On the other hand, carbon dioxide levels continue to increase, with much of the increase due to fossil fuel burning.
Nuclear Hank
Sat, 05/21/2016 - 8:46am
Jim You convinced me that you may not know the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and are apparently not aware of the reported increase in atmospheric water vapor as the earth temperature rises as it has been doing since the end of the last ice age.
Robert Mack
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 2:35pm
There are as many or probably more "scientific experts" that say "global warming" is a myth, as there are questions on this subject. But there is no question Al Gore has been making millions pushing the environment catastrophe BS. He dreamed up a scam with "carbon credits" where violators of environment rules he helped to write have to pay, and I am sure he somehow gets a portion, as he Jets all over the world spewing pollution. It is okay for him to pollute but not you peons. Nature is responsible for most environmental pollution. Alberta Canada has been experiencing huge forest fires with untold pollution released into the atmosphere. California and other states also have huge wildfires every year. Should they be fined for this? There are volcanoes all over the planet Earth that spew their gases every day and more of these are unseen under the seas than on land. Mother Nature makes man look insignificant in comparison. America's industries have already been decimated. We cannot close anymore industries and survive. The Earth has been much hotter in cycles of the past, reason why Dinosaur died. click on the following link to see temp fluctuations over thousands of years. http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/02/an-inconvenient-truth-liberal-climate-...
Tue, 05/17/2016 - 6:47pm
If the website you sited had a complete graph, it would show that past temperatures were linked to carbon dioxide levels. In effect, you are proving my point. Carbon dioxide levels will soon be going off the graph and temperature rise will follow. How about siting more objective websites, like www.epa.gov ? You will get a more accurate answer.
Nuclear Hank
Sat, 05/21/2016 - 8:50am
Jim You know the answer so therefor you search for anything that looks like evidence to support your per conceived conclusion.
George Ranville
Wed, 05/18/2016 - 12:44pm
I went to the web site of Jim Lax and read "about" Who funds his organization? Full disclosure would go a long way. Who are his supporters who want to destroy our economy because of this junk science? Science. The apple falls from the tree because of gravity - every time. Junk Science. Thousands of scientists completely disagree with his position. The apple falls up?
Wed, 05/18/2016 - 4:44pm
Thanks, George, for finding my website. Climate for Tomorrow is a unique organization. It’s a business providing basic climate forecasts online for free and specialized forecasts and information for a fee. The research side is entirely self-funded, meaning I operate independently. I believe in objective investigation, not preconceived notions. I also believe that the world’s greatest scientist was Johannes Kepler. Why Kepler? Kepler had a theory of planetary motion. After years he managed to get data to test his theory. He tried to get the data to fit his theory. It didn’t work. Kepler abandoned his preconceived notions and arrived at a different theory. The new theory correctly explained the motions of planets. The same equations are used today to determine orbits of satellites, including those sending information to our electronic devices. The next time you pick up a cell phone, thank Kepler for having the courage to change his mind in light of the facts.
Matt
Wed, 05/18/2016 - 4:08pm
Kudos to you Mr.Lax! While I'm certain I'd disagree with some or many of your conclusions and prescriptions if you detailed them more but you are one of very few columnists here that defends and responds to readers. I think that's pretty cool and makes Bridge a more entertaining read. Thanks.
Ed O'Neill
Wed, 05/18/2016 - 4:14pm
I find many of the responses to Jim Lax’s commentary to be extremely disturbing. I have followed the climate change research and find the research to be very persuasive! There is a very strong consensus within the scientific community that global warming is occurring and that greenhouse gases are a major cause. Virtually all of the ‘skepticism’ comes directly or indirect from the business and political communities. I will find it almost impossible to vote for a climate change denier. I say this not because it is the most important issue (although it is important) but because it is indicative of a politician’s ability to use the information available to make rational decisions and provide the needed leadership.
Mark
Thu, 05/19/2016 - 7:43am
Ed- You need to be more objective. If you find the global climate change persuasive, then you need to ask more questions and follow the money trail. Our Govt has spent Billions on this bogus claim that should have been shut down years ago. However, that isn't how academic science funding works. Scientists that proposed ways to deny the concept, were denied of funding. That is the bias of Govt - Academic Research. Also, Climate Change is a way for the Govt to eventually use as a Tax to expand Govt for all programs. It was just a few decades ago that the Global Climate Change folks were predicting another ice age! Also, remember - what do you think the Great Lakes were or Long Island New York and other areas were before????.....They were Ice....and how did they melt? Hint...not by Man Made Greenhouse Gases!
Ed
Thu, 05/19/2016 - 2:25pm
Mark, we may not agree on much but you are right about following the money trail. When you examine who has been funding the climate change deniers, it will eventually lead back to the Koch brothers and other billionaires that are heavily invested in fossil fuels. I have confidence in the research that has been done at our universities including the work done at the Byrd Polar Research Center where Jim Lax was for many years. Arguing that there is a vast conspiracy to suppress funding of "Scientists that proposed ways to deny the concept" is simply not believable. While American scientists have been leaders, scientists worldwide have been done climate research and reached similar conclusions. Be objective: if you follow the money trail, examine the scholarly publications, and talk to the scientists, you are likely to reach the same conclusion.
Mark
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 6:39am
Ed- As an academic, I have reviewed and I have reached the conclusion. Opponents have been denied federal grants, and there hasn't been a research model yet that has been accurate in proving that man made greenhouse gases affect the climate. I fully advocate clean coal power plants and nuclear power plants. These two sources of energy should always be part of our energy policy.
Nuclear Hank
Sat, 05/21/2016 - 8:58am
Ed Plz Google "97% of scientist say---" and read how these phony polls were done. Why haven't the oceans risen 20 feet as Al Gore promised in his documentary?
John
Wed, 05/18/2016 - 4:30pm
This notion that the global scientific community somehow lacks consensus on man-made global warming is utterly bogus. Unless you are cherry picking the tiny percentage of simply less-credible, less-authoritative voices of skepticism, there has never been this degree of universal consensus on any scientific question in human history. But there it is, and the tens of thousands of scientists and peer-reviewed articles demonstrating that climate change is real and we are its cause only seem to entrench the deniers. If this is the case, can't we at least frame the problem as essentially an economic / investment challenge? If policy is always necessarily imperfect, and guided by our evaluation of the pros and cons of action vs. inaction, why don't we just weigh the economic risks and rewards of moving to a clean energy future against the risks and rewards of business as usual? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ Frankly, at this point I don't care whether you believe in climate change or not. The burning of fossil fuels pollutes our environment and has us mired down in the Middle East. Cost competitive alternatives that make us more energy independent exist. They have the potential to create more jobs and economic investment than the current dynamic. Can't we find common ground on pursuing them?
Nuclear Hank
Sat, 05/21/2016 - 9:03am
Plz look Google this and find the truth about the 97% polls and the 30 Thousand plus scientist that do not agree with AGW. They are more creditable then the UNIPCC executive committee.
Barry Visel
Sun, 05/22/2016 - 8:46am
So, thousands of years of cycling ice age events is not considered climate, but 200 years of temperature data is? Unfortunately, this is what makes reading your article so difficult. I don't know if man is changing climate or not. Since you do research on climate change perhaps you can answer a question I have...to what extent did climate change enable the evolution of man, if any? If flood insurance is any example, we are a long way from fearing climate change. Each year rivers flood, and each year victims collect flood insurance SO THEY CAN REBUILD IN EXACTLY THE SAME SPOT. A recent National Geographic article identified 47 building projects, each taller than 700 feet, that have either been built (13), are being built (15), or are planned...all since 2004. At the same time I read about possible plans to build flood control systems around New York to keep out a rising ocean...at billions if not trillions of dollars, most likely at taxpayer expense. Does this make sense? Do those investors know something this author doesn't know? If carbon is indeed the problem, then switching to nuclear power is a simple first step. But instead of providing tax credits for low efficiency and only semi-reliable solar and wind schemes, I'd rather see a "Manhatten -like" research effort to really make solar efficient, at a cost comparable or lower than today's electric market. Then we can use solar electricity to capture hydrogen from water which will run fuel cells to power our needs, and which is essentially clean.
Mon, 05/23/2016 - 4:57pm
Check out NatureChange.org, a new online magazine that covers conservation and the effects of Climate Change in Northern Michigan. It's no joke. It's real. And it's changing our way of life.
Tam
Mon, 05/23/2016 - 6:28pm
I like that I can get ripe tomatoes in the UP. There are down sides to climate change, but there are also some positives. Perhaps there should be more focus on some of the positives.
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 4:11pm
I would like to thank everyone for providing comments and keeping the discussion open on climate change. Further information and resources can be found at the Climate for Tomorrow website, www.climatefortomorrow.com .