Arctic's record warming driving 'broad change' in environment: study

Persistent heat records have rattled the fragile Arctic for each of the past five years, a record-long warming streak, said the
Persistent heat records have rattled the fragile Arctic for each of the past five years, a record-long warming streak, said the 2018 Arctic Report Card, released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Global warming is heating the Arctic at a record pace, driving broad environmental changes across the planet, including extreme storms in the United States and Europe, a major US scientific report said Tuesday.

Persistent heat records have assaulted the fragile Arctic for each of the past five years—a record-long warming streak, said the 2018 Arctic Report Card, released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The mounting heat in the north is upsetting typical weather patterns, a trend that "coincides" with severe winter storms in the eastern United States and an extreme cold snap in Europe in March, it said.

"Continued warming of the Arctic atmosphere and ocean are driving broad change in the environmental system in predicted and, also, unexpected ways," warned the report.

"New and rapidly emerging threats are taking form and highlighting the level of uncertainty in the breadth of environmental change that is to come."

Emily Osborne, program manager of NOAA's Arctic Research Program, told reporters the Arctic "is experiencing the most unprecedented transition in human history."

The report was released at the American Geophysical Union's annual conference in Washington, just weeks after another damning climate assessment by federal scientists which US President Donald Trump dismissed, saying he did not "believe" it.

Persistent heat records have rattled the fragile Arctic for each of the past five years, a record-long warming streak
Persistent heat records have rattled the fragile Arctic for each of the past five years, a record-long warming streak

Asked by reporters if he had personally briefed Trump on the latest Arctic findings, NOAA acting administrator Timothy Gallaudet said he had not, but he insisted that NOAA has the White House's support when it comes to scientific research.

Temperature records

Arctic air temperatures for the past five years, from 2014 to 2018, "have exceeded all previous records since 1900," when record-keeping began, said the peer-reviewed report compiled by 81 scientists working for governments and academia in 12 nations.

This warming trend "is unlike any other period on record," it said.

During the latest period studied, October 2017 through September 2018, annual average temperature in the Arctic was 3.1 Fahrenheit (1.7 Celsius) higher than the 1981–2010 average.

"The year 2018 was the second warmest year on record in the Arctic since 1900 (after 2016)," it said.

The Arctic also saw the second-lowest overall sea-ice coverage and the lowest recorded winter ice in the Bering Sea.

The warmer Arctic temperatures are wreaking havoc on the Arctic ecosystem, decimating wildlife populations including reindeer
The warmer Arctic temperatures are wreaking havoc on the Arctic ecosystem, decimating wildlife populations including reindeer

Another key measure of ice cover is its age, and the old, thick kind is rapidly disappearing across the Arctic.

Last year, old ice made up less than one percent of the ice pack.

Over the past 33 years, very old Arctic ice has declined by 95 percent.

Jet stream

The Arctic continues to heat up at twice the rate of the rest of the planet, but the effects are far from isolated, and are now spilling over into the mid-latitudes.

That's because a warmer Arctic reduces the north-south temperature difference, which provides the main fuel for the polar jet stream, or a river of strong wind, at levels where jet aircraft fly, NOAA said.

In this warming environment, the jet stream has become wavier, a pattern that "allows warm air to penetrate farther north and cold air to plunge farther south, compared to when the jet is strong and relatively straight," said the report.

The mounting heat in the north is upsetting typical weather patterns, a trend that "coincides" with severe winter weat
The mounting heat in the north is upsetting typical weather patterns, a trend that "coincides" with severe winter weather events such as Europe's "Beast from the East" extreme cold snap in March 2018

Scientist now see evidence that this changing jet stream may be sparking extreme storms.

Examples include "the heat wave at the North Pole in autumn 2017, a swarm of severe winter storms in the eastern United States in 2018, and the extreme cold outbreak in Europe in March 2018 known as the 'Beast from the East.'"

Reindeer, marine life

Meanwhile, warmer Arctic temperatures are wreaking havoc on the Arctic ecosystem, decimating reindeer and caribou populations, allowing harmful algae blooms to move northward and sickening marine life, said the report, now in its 13th year.

"Considerable concentrations of algal toxins have been found in the tissues of Arctic clams, seals, walrus, and whales and other marine organisms," it said.

Even though melting ice has freed up more land for grazing, herds of caribou and wild reindeer across the Arctic tundra have declined by 56 percent over the last two decades, cutting populations from 4.7 million to 2.1 million.

"The long-term warming trend may be taking a toll on some of the Arctic's most majestic animals," said Howard Epstein, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.

Polar bears at risk
Factfile on polar bears. A committee of wildlife experts warned Monday that Canada's polar bears were at risk of disappearing from its vast Arctic landscape as melting Arctic sea ice makes hunting prey a challenge.

Scientists attribute the decline to increased frequency of drought, which affects quality of the tundra, and longer and hotter summers which can lead to more parasites.

Another new focus of the report involved the emerging threat of marine microplastics, which scientists have discovered are accumulating in the Arctic at higher concentrations than anywhere else in the world.

"This pollution—from plastics produced and discarded in more populated areas of the world—is likely traveling with ocean currents to the Arctic," said Karen Frey, professor of geography at Clark University.

Microplastic contamination has increased over the last decade, and is a concern because seabirds and marine life can ingest debris, sickening them and interfering with a key food and income source for people who consume them, she said.


Explore further

Warm Arctic means colder, snowier winters in northeastern US, study says

© 2018 AFP

Citation: Arctic's record warming driving 'broad change' in environment: study (2018, December 11) retrieved 21 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-12-arctic-broad-environment.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
155 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 11, 2018
Scientist now see evidence that this changing jet stream may be sparking extreme storms.

You can see anything you want with the myopic vision of confirmation bias; otherwise known as "cherry-picking" a subset of the data. But global data shows this:

http://models.wea..._ace.png

No discernible trend of more powerful storms; just natural variation.

the dearth of ice in the Bering Sea, which was at a record low extent for virtually the entire 2017-2018 ice season

Yet minimum sea ice extent for the entire Arctic (not just the Bering Sea) in 2018 was 36% higher than the lowest on record (in 2012).

https://nsidc.org...e-graph/

However, Arctic sea ice may continue to decline. The earth has experienced several interglacial warm periods in the last million years and probably hasn't peaked yet.

https://www.clima...arge.png

Dec 11, 2018
The only thing unprecedented in climate science is the new lows to which the scientists will stoop in order to indoctrinate the public. Mix a corrupt Deep State with a corrupted educational/science community that lives on government funding and you have all of the ingredients needed for the collapse of a free society and a rise of totalitarianism.

Dec 11, 2018
The Arctic continues to heat up at twice the rate of the rest of the planet

Perhaps because the stratosphere starts at half the altitude than at the equator

Dec 11, 2018
With 20 hours of sunlight a day, a warmer arctic just means multiple growing seasons for massive amounts of newly created farmland.

Almost too bad this global warming thing is a sham.

Dec 11, 2018
Wow, the trolls are out in force today. Good job fellas, keep on truthing!

Dec 11, 2018
The difference between historical inter-glacial melting and current melting is that the latter is amplified significantly by the anthropogenic causes in addition to natural variability.

This is something that never happened before in the history of the earth; humans are very recent on geological time scale.

Dec 11, 2018
Other Threats:


COLD.

Dec 11, 2018
Wow, the trolls are out in force today. Good job fellas, keep on truthing!
I went over to some OSIRIS stories to read the asteroid trolls but there aren't any. They don't believe what's said about the air that surrounds us, but a story claiming there's a 600 pound rock just floating around, millions of miles away, seems ok to them.

Dec 11, 2018
Right now France is rioting over global warming taxes on fuel.

The end state of all this nonsense is you get to use less fuel for your car and to heat your home while a chosen few keep their private jets.

Meanwhile there is absolutely no attempt to approach peak oil in any sustainable way, say with global rooftop solar panels, or to stop overpopulation, say with a global two child policy.

We just get the same political creeps lying to us about carbon dioxide from burning fuel while frenetic oil drilling releases unmitigated, continuing geysers of untrapped and far more greenhouse-like methane gas.

When was the last time any of them said anything about responsible drilling to prevent methane releases into the atmosphere? That's right: never! Because they are lying to you.

Dec 12, 2018
Life is more numerous and diversified in warmer environments. Don't believe it? Go to the Amazon.

Dec 12, 2018
No doubt, this scientific report along with all of them will be simply ignored and/or dismissed my morons like Trump and the trolls and real science-ignorant nut-jobs here who don't want reality. Meanwhile, the science will continue to tell all of those of us willing to look at reality that our climate is warming. Science has warned us.

Dec 12, 2018
Life is more numerous and diversified in warmer environments. Don't believe it? Go to the Amazon.


Sahara?

Dec 12, 2018
No doubt, this scientific report along with all of them will be simply ignored and/or dismissed my morons like Trump and the trolls and real science-ignorant nut-jobs here who don't want reality. Meanwhile, the science will continue to tell all of those of us willing to look at reality that our climate is warming. Science has warned us.


The"science" identifies EXACTLY who are the greatest polluters on the planet, China & India in that order. Maybe you should be asking yourself why they refuse to sign onto the Paris Accords?

Here we have two countries of almost 3 billion total population, however just one country (USA) of 330 million in your brain dead cycle of media psycho-babble claim the USA is the world's biggest polluter just because a blonde guy name of Trump is now the President of the country. Where is your criticism of the 3 billion brownskins in China & India who are exempted from the Paris Accords?

You're on a racist rant, not a "science" one.

Dec 12, 2018
The"science" identifies EXACTLY who are the greatest polluters on the planet, China & India in that order. Maybe you should be asking yourself why they refuse to sign onto the Paris Accords?

Here we have two countries of almost 3 billion total population, however just one country (USA) of 330 million in your brain dead cycle of media psycho-babble claim the USA is the world's biggest polluter just because a blonde guy name of Trump is now the President of the country. Where is your criticism of the 3 billion brownskins in China & India who are exempted from the Paris Accords?

You're on a racist rant, not a "science" one.

Benni

I said/implied absolutely NOTHING of the sort.
Go back to my last post; take a big breath; read it again; SLOWLY this time so you ONLY read what I ACTUALLY said.
ALL the current superpowers are contributing to the problem and I DON'T CARE which one is contributing most. I made NO such assertion of who is contributing most.


Dec 12, 2018
who are the greatest polluters on the planet, China & India in that order


India 10% of USA per capita CO2
China 46% of USA per Capita CO2

https://en.wikipe...r_capita

Dec 12, 2018
Just an awful argument SteveS...

USA 40% of Qatar per capita CO2
USA 47% of Trinidad and Tobago per capita CO2

Dec 12, 2018
Just an awful argument SteveS...

USA 40% of Qatar per capita CO2
USA 47% of Trinidad and Tobago per capita CO2


On the contrary, your figures just reinforce my argument that China and India are not the greatest polluters on the planet per capita

Dec 12, 2018
greatest polluters on the planet per capita

That's the terrible argument. Who cares about per capita when emissions are regulated at a NATIONAL level, so it's an overall NATION's duty to limit pollution.

Dec 12, 2018
The"science" identifies EXACTLY who are the greatest polluters on the planet, China & India in that order. Maybe you should be asking yourself why they refuse to sign onto the Paris Accords?

Here we have two countries of almost 3 billion total population, however just one country (USA) of 330 million in your brain dead cycle of media psycho-babble claim the USA is the world's biggest polluter just because a blonde guy name of Trump is now the President of the country. Where is your criticism of the 3 billion brownskins in China & India who are exempted from the Paris Accords?

You're on a racist rant, not a "science" one.

Benni

I said/implied absolutely NOTHING of the sort.
I made NO such assertion of who is contributing most.
You made that obvious by the fact you never brought up the exemptions the worst polluters have been given, to boot, you imply the opposite by taking a swipe at a blonde guy whose country has done more than any to reduce emissions.

Dec 12, 2018
swipe at a blonde guy whose
trying to undo regulations aimed at limiting pollution. Just because the US has put in great effort to reduce emissions that doesn't mean they are holier than thou. Everyone sucks, stop pointing fingers

Dec 12, 2018
who are the greatest polluters on the planet, China & India in that order


India 10% of USA per capita CO2
China 46% of USA per Capita CO2

https://en.wikipe...r_capita


Share of global GHG emissions in 2017:

China (26.8%)
US (13.1%)
Europe (9%)
India (7%)

UN Report 2018 Page 6: http://wedocs.une...quence=1

Dec 12, 2018
"trying to undo regulations aimed at limiting pollution."

Thus by your logic EVERY regulation that reduces pollution is a good regulation no matter what the real cost is.

South Australia has the highest electricity prices in the world due to "Good" regulations.

Dec 12, 2018
Thus by your logic EVERY regulation

Are you a Sith, because only they deal in absolutes

Dec 12, 2018
who are the greatest polluters on the planet, China & India in that order


India 10% of USA per capita CO2
China 46% of USA per Capita CO2


Per Capita????????

What an absolutely skewed misapplication of statistics. The country with the smallest population will ALWAYS have the highest PER CAPITA share of the total. Wkii, like you, hasn't figured it out either because it is also their incapable people who like you who come up with that kind of math.

Dividing a TOTAL by 3 billion people will result in a much different per capita when dividing it by 330 million, by nine times the per capita on the distribution curve.

Ok, since you really believe in that kind of math, deconstruct the house you live in, take your furnace parts & build for yourself a hut somewhere & hope for Meals on Wheels to show up once a day with some kind of handout meal, all this just so you can do your part not to be part of the statistics you quote.


Dec 12, 2018
US GDP 20 Billion 13/20=0.65%/billion
China GDP 13Billion 27/13=2%/billion

Thus, save the world and move industry back to the US in order to reduce pollution.

Yea Trump!

Dec 12, 2018
>humy et al

List of most-polluted cities by particulate matter concentration

https://en.wikipe...ntration

Here, for those of you who like to quote Wiki CO2 per capita emissions numbers, go take a look a look at the real kind stuff that causes birth defects, etc. India's cities at the top of the list, China 2nd. These two countries occupy almost all the first 300 positions of the most polluted cities on the planet.........and of the 500 hundred listed, there is not a single US city in it......OK, your turn to blame this list on a blonde guy sitting in the White House, but you wouldn't think of doing that would you?

Dec 12, 2018
Benni

I DON'T CARE if Trump is "blond" or is American and, say, NOT Chinese; He is one of the many morons because, just like ALL those that deny the science in ANY country they are in, whether they are Chinese, English, American; DON'T CARE which, he denies the SCIENCE. I CEARLY didn't imply the contrary. Get it now? Or are you just too think to get it?

And lets say the US isn't the biggest polluter: Relevance? if it were true, what do you conclude from US polluting less than, say, China? That US "therefore" shouldn't agree to reduce its own pollution? That is STUPID. A given amount of pollution from one particular country does the same amount of harm regardless of the amount of pollution from another country.

Dec 12, 2018
My above missedit
"Or are you just too think to get it?"
should have been;
"Or are you just too thick to get it?"
My spell checker doesn't correct the right spelling for the wrong word.

Dec 12, 2018
Humy Climate Science is not a science by any stretch of the imagination. True science is never "Settled" and opposing research is never called "Denial" .

Dec 12, 2018
Also scientists are never removed from university research positions because their findings jeopardize future university funding.

Dec 12, 2018
He is one of the many morons because, just like ALL those that deny the science


How do you know he denies the "science"? The "science" of what?

That US "therefore" shouldn't agree to reduce its own pollution?


Compared to what or whom?

My water supply is pristine mountain water from my many acres which also is as close to pristine as can be found on planet Earth. Should I compare New York City, not even on the 500 list, to my property or some better known polluted dump in India or China? Which is the most fair standard of comparison?

Yeah humy, I know, never point to the brown skinned population centers for comparisons, just stick to the blonde Trump comparison whereby you neatly make it a race issue instead of a "science" issue, but that doesn't preclude the fact that not a single US city is in the list of the top 500 most polluted population centers in the world.

Dec 12, 2018
Which country is the "greatest polluter" is completely irrelevant here.
At least with all else kept equal, it would be a GOOD thing if ALL the countries that pollute strived to find cost-effective practical ways (like a few are currently beginning to and with some notable albeit so-far small success) to reduce their pollution, not JUST ONLY whichever country just happens to be the one that pollutes the most.
A given amount of pollution from one particular country does the same amount of harm regardless of the amount of pollution from another country therefore which country pollutes the most is irrelevant to the amount of harm from the amount of pollution from one particular country and therefore irrelevant to the question of whether that particular country should do something about it.
Lets say person X produces 100 tons of pollution per day and person Y produces 200 tons of pollution per day; So person X shouldn't do anything to reduce how much pollution he makes?


Dec 12, 2018
He is one of the many morons because, just like ALL those that deny the science


How do you know he denies the "science"? The "science" of what?

Climate.
That US "therefore" shouldn't agree to reduce its own pollution?


Compared to what or whom?

Nether. "reduce pollution" doesn't imply "reduce pollution compared to ...(something)...".
"reduce pollution" means just that.
-How are you reading comprehension skills?

Next stupid question...

Dec 12, 2018
@humy

Lenny the liar denies the science.

Dec 12, 2018
greatest polluters on the planet per capita

That's the terrible argument. Who cares about per capita when emissions are regulated at a NATIONAL level, so it's an overall NATION's duty to limit pollution.


By that argument if China were to split in two through revolution they would no longer need to reduce pollution, which is nonsensical. The low per capita figures of these countries are linked to low quality of life, but you seem to feel that they should be kept in poverty so that developed countries can enjoy their higher quality of life.

The richer more developed countries are more able to lower their contribution to global pollution through greater efficiency and innovation without affecting individuals.

Dec 12, 2018
>humy

Which country is the "greatest polluter" is completely irrelevant here.
.......yeah I know, you want to create as much psycho-babble word salad as you can because you have no way to defend exempting China & India from the Paris Accords, except basing it on RACE.

Xi Jinping of China- has black hair in a country for which half the cities of the list of 500 most polluted are under his dictatorial pervue.........but you wouldn't name call him a "moron" would you?

Ram Nath Kovind of India has black hair in a country for which almost half the cities on the list of 500 most polluted are under his pervue.......but you wouldn't name call him a "moron" would you?

Donald Trump of USA-has blonde hair in a country for which not a single city in the list of 500 most polluted appears.....but YOU repeatedly call him a "moron".

According to your criteria as to whom should wear a "moron" crown, that leaders cities must NOT be one of the 500 most polluted in the world.

Dec 12, 2018
By that argument if China were to split in two through revolution they would no longer need to reduce pollution, which is nonsensical. The low per capita figures of these countries are linked to low quality of life, but you seem to feel that they should be kept in poverty so that developed countries can enjoy their higher quality of life.

This whole paragraph is nonsensical. So by saying China needs to limit their emissions, I apparently hate poor people? Man u smaht.

That's like saying it's ok for poor people to commit robberies because they had a rough go at it.

What is it with you shills that makes you want to try and put words in peoples mouths?


Dec 12, 2018
Compared to what or whom?


Nether. "reduce pollution" doesn't imply "reduce pollution compared to ...(something)...".
"reduce pollution" means just that.


What kind of statistical modeling is:

"reduce pollution" doesn't imply "reduce pollution compared to ...(something)....."

In any laboratory environment, ambient background levels of same substance for comparison to final data readout is VITAL for deriving accurate data. If background levels are not deducted how would it be known but what Xi Jinping of China won't claim pollution in China is caused by the spread of volcanic ash from Indonesia?

.....but you want to do the usual & go on name calling rants:
How are you reading comprehension skills?

Next stupid question...


OK, you never have intelligent questions, so your next stupid response is: ?


Dec 12, 2018
I apparently hate poor people?


That appears to be the long and the short of it.

Dec 12, 2018
the richer more developed countries are more able to lower their contribution to global pollution through greater efficiency and innovation without affecting individuals.


......and the fact that none of THEIR cities appear in the 500 most polluted list in the world is evidence that they have. Your psycho-babble argument is this would somehow offset the pollution created by the remaining 3/4 of the rest of the world population? How about if those countries just get to the levels where we already are, ever think about that? No, of course you haven't thought about that.......?

Dec 12, 2018

What kind of statistical modeling is:

"reduce pollution" doesn't imply "reduce pollution compared to ...(something)....."

Benni

Which part of "reduce pollution" do you have a problem with?
It it the word "reduce" you don't understand or the word "pollution"?
Just look up these words in the dictionary, then think what they mean when the two are put together, and come back to us.
Here is a hint; "reduce pollution" implies "make less pollution than was made before" and doesn't involve comparing the amount coming from different counties.


Dec 12, 2018
What kind of statistical modeling is:

"reduce pollution" doesn't imply "reduce pollution compared to ...(something)....."

Benni

Which part of "reduce pollution" do you have a problem with?
It it the word "reduce" you don't understand or the word "pollution"?

Here is a hint; "reduce pollution" implies "make less pollution than was made before" and doesn't involve comparing the amount coming from different counties.
........as if every country has an isolated atmosphere?

Everything you keep bringing up is ONLY about the blonde guy, every problem the world has is because Trump has blond hair. The United States could go out of existence today & that wouldn't change even one population center on the 500 list of most polluted cities.

I have pristine water & air, NOBODY in China/India does.

Maybe you propose to build impermeable border walls extending beyond the stratosphere to keep China/India pollution off your house & out of your yard?

Dec 13, 2018
Benni

So what is your implied argument that US should do nothing to reduce its pollution?
Lets say, just for the sake of argument, China and India currently pollutes far more than the US. ...So?...So what? Relevance?
What has that got to do with whether the US should do something to reduce its own pollution?
If China and India then starting polluting LESS than the US, would you suddenly say "Oh, well, that now changes everything! Now the US should start to think about reducing ITS pollution"? That is completely moronic.
Obviously, for best results, ALL counties must reduce their pollution, and NOBODY is saying the contrary.
But, even if some other counties don't agree to reduce their pollution, that doesn't mean your country shouldn't.

Dec 13, 2018
Putting the above in another way, two wrongs don't make a right.
If you do X amount of harm and somebody does Y amount of FAR more harm, that doesn't justify you doing X amount of harm; you are still doing harm.You are still contributing to the problem and, until you stop doing so, you are in no position to give moral lectures to others causing even more harm. The first step is to do everything you can within reason to reduce the harm you do; only then can you give moral lectures.

Dec 13, 2018
But, even if some other counties don't agree to reduce their pollution, that doesn't mean your country shouldn't.


In he meantime you don't demand that the primary sources of air & water pollution pay the price for the filthy air west coast populations are FORCED to breath, or the coastline that is being cluttered up with the filth of their garbage, but somehow blond Trump is to blame for this mess because according to you it wouldn't otherwise be as bad as it is.

How about if those countries just get to the levels where we already are, ever think about that? No, of course you haven't thought about that......?

Hey humy, move to India & enjoy the filth, you'll feel quite at home there, at least they speak English.


Dec 13, 2018
You guys can debate all you want about pollution or lack there of but the fact remains that people are living longer than ever because of cheap fossil power and the food and warmth that they provide. The only thing increasing the death rate is the depression caused by the incessant pounding our children take in school and the media about how all life will end in the next 20 years due to C02 emissions and the drug culture that allows everyone to escape reality.

Dec 13, 2018
Remember, if you raise the cost of power you KILL people.

Dec 13, 2018
But, even if some other counties don't agree to reduce their pollution, that doesn't mean your country shouldn't.


In he meantime you don't demand that the primary sources of air & water pollution pay the price for the filthy air west coast populations are FORCED to breath, or

If what you mean I don't demand that polluters don't do anything to reduce their pollution, that is obviously false. Please don't LIE. Regardless of which country is involved, the polluters should do something to reduce their pollution.

As for Trump; straw man; I do not blame Trump for the pollution from other countries; I only blame him for denying the scientific facts about climate change and trying his personal best to stop the progress in US of reducing their emissions.

Dec 13, 2018
MR166

Straw man: Nobody denies fossil power has benefited us and still is. Obviously, Nobody is suggesting we should suddenly stop using all fossil fuel power before we had a chance to replace it with alternatives.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't now gradually step-by-step replace fossil power with more cost effective and less polluting and sustainable sources of power that will then benefit us, both in terms of health and in terms of economics, even more than fossil fuel power.
It is idiotic to suggest we shouldn't replace something that is less than ideal with something closer to ideal just because the former benefited us in the past.

Dec 13, 2018
" Obviously, Nobody is suggesting we should suddenly stop using all fossil fuel power before we had a chance to replace it with alternatives."

Oh yea, what does a carbon tax do if not that. Yup raise the cost of fossil and kill millions!

Dec 13, 2018
" Obviously, Nobody is suggesting we should suddenly stop using all fossil fuel power before we had a chance to replace it with alternatives."

Oh yea, what does a carbon tax do if not that.

I am not a supporter of carbon tax in particular and have never supported that supported method over some other methods.
What has that got to do with whether we should do something to gradually reduce pollution by gradually replacing fossil fuel power with cheaper better and less polluting alternatives?
How would that kill millions?
What about the many that are killed by pollution? -is that ignored in your thinking?

Dec 13, 2018
My misedit:
That should have been
"I am not a supporter of carbon tax in particular and have never supported that particular method over some other methods."

Dec 13, 2018
Well I support free choice and free energy markets. When solar and wind become as reliable and cheap as other sources of power there will be a natural shift towards them. No government mandates will be needed. All pollution has to be judged on a cost/benefit basis. To make a blanket statement that every source of pollution is bad and must be eliminated at any cost is not rational.

Dec 14, 2018
It seems that the entire green movement has more to do with economic disruption that any actual helping of mankind or the planet.

http://www.climat...ke-news/

Dec 17, 2018
Is this the same arctic that al gore said would be ice-free by now?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more