Cold Facts About Cold Facts
I'm anguished. For almost six weeks I've been meaning to post on Cold Facts About Our Warm Planet, a four-part TV series from Seattle's KIRO that you can view online. But I couldn't decide what I wanted to say.
On the one hand, it's terrific. The series is some of the best local TV coverage I've ever seen on climate. Focusing on disruptions to the Northwest's natural heritage, it includes great photography, good reporting on a range of issues, and unusually clear explanations of how climate change disrupts snowpack, forests, wildlife, and so on. So there's that.
On the other hand, some elements stink. I almost stopped watching after minute or two when the narrator intones, "Is it real or is it a hoax?"
A hoax? Seriously?
Are we still doing that? Or is that just what happens when a writer phones in a hackneyed script ?
Look, I hate to sound pugnacious -- no, really -- but in late 2007, framing a climate change series under the banner of "possible hoax" is just stupid. It's a bit different, I might add, than simply questioning the scientific veracity of global warming. That would a stupid exercise too -- for reasons too obvious to point out -- but it wouldn't be nearly as obnoxious as calling it a "hoax." Is climate change really in the same category as the Loch Ness Monster?
Good News on Climate
Hooray -- today's papers bring two pieces of good news!
First, Washington State rejected plans for a new coal-fired power plant, because the proposed plant would boost climate-warming emissions:
In a critical first test of a new state law meant to block construction of power plants that spew climate-changing gases, a state panel soundly rejected plans for a 793-megawatt plant in Kalama, Cowlitz County, that would be fueled by coal or oil-refinery waste.
That's great news: not only because of this particular plant, but also because it demonstrates that legal measures to curb climate change are actually beginning to have an effect.
And second, the US Energy Information Administration is reporting that GHG emissions in the US fell in 2006 (pdf link)-- the first decline since 2001. My guess is that, even in the absence of a comprehensive climate policy, higher energy prices are beginning to take the edge off energy appetite. Of course, the decline was modest -- only about 1.5 percent -- and much of it could be attributed to mild weather. Still, when it comes to the climate, I'll take my good news where I can get it.
