Climate change promises
“Maine is taking a lead on climate change” says a headline on Sunday’s BDN opinion page. But the next day, a front page article, “Yale a key player in CMP’s hydro plan,” points out that a poll found that 65 percent of Mainers oppose the corridor, 88 percent in Franklin County, and the issue could be headed for a referendum. In other words, these Mainers prefer to use electricity generated by fossil fuel rather than climate friendly-water.
If they succeed, they will kill a plan that covers electrical consumption in the entire New England grid.
You would think the climate-change caused horrendous forest fires that have raged in the west might give them pause. As it stands, the headline above should read “Maine is taking a lead on climate change promises.”
Paul H. Gray
Debate must be informed by scientific data
The world’s scientific community has been nearly unanimous in regarding climate change (driven by human activity) as an immediate and existential threat. It is disappointing that the BDN chose to print Larry Grimard’s faulty analysis of NOAA’s climate data, adding legitimacy to an erroneous assumption based upon flawed perceptions. I imagine that this was done in an effort to offer varying perspectives on an issue of grave concern, but the dissemination of misinformation without comment does not serve readers well.
The NOAA website offers a wealth of information, much in the form of graphs and maps, but in his letter, it is unclear if Grimard consulted and/or correctly interpreted the appropriate ones. If he had not done so already, I recommend to Grimard: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/.
That global temperature anomalies have been rising consistently over time is undeniable. Grimard seems to accept this, but questions whether so modest an increase is impactful.
Considering global averages alone, however, can be misleading, for change is not evenly distributed over the planet, with some regions heating at faster rates than others (i.e.: warming becomes more pronounced as one increases in latitude and the Gulf of Maine’s temperature is rising faster than nearly every other sector of the ocean, with disastrous consequences).
Each of us has the right and responsibility to question the science of climate change, but understanding must be informed by and consistent with scientific data. When media outlets give voice to erroneous beliefs without identifying them as such, they fail in their charge to dispense the truth.
Destroying the planet
As the children today beg us to save our planet, their lives, and their futures, it’s cause for us take a minute and think about how we got to this point, and who’s to blame. The answer is really quite simple: it’s about greed.
Let’s start with fossil fuel, and the billions in profits oil companies make every year. They’re not going to change. Then there are the automobile companies working in conjunction with oil companies. These internal combustion engines that burn excessive amounts of fuel and spew out dirty emissions have to go! How many of you know that the hybrid electric car dates back to around 1900? This isn’t new technology. How many of you know that your car, or that pick-up in your driveway, can run on natural gas? We have the technology to convert them tomorrow, and those exhaust emissions would be reduced, and the life of your engine would increase.
Then you have politicians relaxing pollution requirements. I am trying my best not to make this political, but indeed, it is. I am 76-years-old. I’ve watched the changes, and the lies, that have brought us to this point. Why do all of these old men in Washington turn their backs to these problems? Simply, It’s greed. And they won’t be around to deal with the problems they create.
To you brave young people out there, fighting the fight: use this information and run with it. Don’t depend on adults, we can’t seem to see past the end of our noses.