Is the National Park Service an outlier in the Trump administration when it comes to climate change?
That question arises not only when you look at the president's efforts to halt President Obama's work on climate change, but also in light of news that the U.S. Department of Energy's website recently was sanitized of climate change materials adopted by the Obama administration. Meanwhile, the Park Service just rolled out a four-color brochure on climate change impacts around the country.
Gone from DOE's site are a video about the 2016 Paris climate agreement, the link to climate.data.gov, another link to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration's National Climate Data Center, and one to the National Climate Assessment. The changes were reported last week by E&E News.
The site does have a link to the president's Climate Action Plan, but it leads to a page with the message, "Thank you for your interest in this subject. Stay tuned as we continue to update whitehouse.gov"
Interestingly, that page does offer a link to the Obama Archive, which takes you to another page listing President Obama's work on health care, climate and energy, American leadership, economic progress, and equality and social progress.
As for the Park Service, the agency just released a brochure that discusses the many challenges the National Park System is facing due to climate change. It touches on melting glaciers, rising seas, altered ecosystems, and species endangered by climate change. Too, it mentions cultural aspects of the National Park System, such as Civil War-era Fort Jefferson at Dry Tortugas National Park, that are threatened by the changes.
Fort Jefferson sits at the water’s edge at Dry Tortugas National Park. Sea level has risen steadily since completion of the fort in 1875, threatening several islands of the Dry Tortugas.
The Park Service also took time to include information on the human causes of climate change and how they can be mitigated.
Using historical climate data, scientists create climate models to project potential future climate changes. Continued GHG emissions will cause further warming and long-lasting changes, increasing the likelihood of irreversible impacts.
However, limiting climate change is not beyond our control. Substantial and sustained reductions in GHG emissions now, along with efforts to adapt to change that is inevitable or already happening, can limit climate change impacts.
The NPS recognizes that human activities—especially fossil fuel use and transportation—are changing the Earth’s climate. Together with our communities, we are taking action to reduce our own GHG emissions and model climate-friendly behaviors through sustainable operations and adaptation efforts.
Comments
Alfred, I have a question for you. You (rightly) express the idea that overpopulation is a great threat to the Earth and human survival upon it. But then you turn around and deny that climate change may be the product of greater human production of greenhouse gases.
Isn't that a contradiction?
Has the world really become less honest, or are people on both sides of issues facing us simply refusing (again) to listen and consider what others are trying to say and simply labeling any differing opinions as "dishonest?" Didn't that happen way back when Nixon signed the Clean Air and Water Acts?
Is there another contradiction in your statement that "You were not asked to "believe" a thing, merely to hear the scientists out?" Have you, and others around us, taken the time to really hear the scientists out, or have we simply rejected their information because it fails to meet whatever our preconceived notions shape our opinions?
Remember, too, the incredible efforts made by powerful industrial and political powers to silence Paul Erlich and Rachel Carson. Are we seeing echoes of that today when the current administration and Congress delete information from NPS websites and cut NASA funds for study of earth science to stymie research that might not support profit goals of energy, chemical, and other industries that are paying handsomely for services of our lawmakers?
Are things REALLY any different than they were back in the 1950's and 60's when Erlich, Carson and Stewart Udall were trying sound alarms just as NASA, NOAA and other researchers are now? CBS, NBC, PBS and other news agencies still talk about science, but now some folks label it as Fake News.
Looks to me as if not much has changed except the current cast of characters. Money and greed still try to dictate what can and cannot be spoken or published.
Unfortunately, Erlich, Carson, Udall and others then -- and now -- are probably going to go down in history a lot like Noah. We ignore them, but at what peril? Throughout human history, anyone who looked into the future and tried to warn others what they feared were signs of trouble, have been ignored, ridiculed, and worse. But how many times in the past have those warnings risen up to snap at us?
Finally, read what you have written. How can you fail to see the contradictions in what you have said? With all due respect, it sure looks to me as if you are doing exactly what you warn us not to do.
It might not be too late --- if we will simply wake up and start to really think and listen and accept the possibility that some of us might be right and some wrong. The trick is figuring out who is who. We're not going to figure that out if we simply try to silence the other side. Evidence is there. Let's collect it. Examine it. And then act -- intelligently -- upon what it teaches us.
Al Runte is a post-fact historian.
Funding for light rail at the Grand Canyon was opposed by and finally killed by Congressional Republicans in the late 1990s and early 2000s. They viewed it as a Babbitt-era initiative worth opposing on those grounds alone.
Maybe senior National Park Service administrators opposed it or were indifferent to it, too, but nearly all of them are retired and the current administrators on the South Rim were middle managers, at best, at the time.
The only real scandal is that they built the stations first but that's entirely different problem than his initial post.
Let's remember the lines that Mr. Runte is happy to parrot for his cracker crumbs from the American Enterprise Institute: civil servants are culpable for sins of the father while elected Republicans never are.
But don't even expect that consistency when it comes to his precious choo-choo trains.
All of NASA and NOAA climate scientists predictions of the last decade have proven to be wrong. They tell us there is acceleration of rising sea levels and show us examples where land subsidence is actually the primary factor, they tell us there is record warmth and choose urban heat affected stations as proof, they ignore the temperature records of history and manipulate data. Sorry but these "climate scientists" have ruined their credibility for those us that actually look at the science. They have successfully fooled a lot of people who trust them. They promote fear and alarmism by claiming the mole fraction of increased atmospheric CO2 is having any effect with no evidence whatsoever. These people are anti-science. Again, I blame our education system for creating a generation of ignorance.
I'm sure you can cite your claim.
Oh wait, I know you can't.
First off I would like to apologize to Kurt. He politely stated last year that his preference is that we all get along or he was going to remove the comments section. It is likely we should heed his warning and be a more polite about our disagreements.
I avoid being a troll although I do have the right skill set to be fairly decent at the craft. Having said that I am going to be as polite as possible about a couple of the comments.
beachdumb's opinion that climate change is not real or human induced should not involve insulting remarks such as a reference to education levels. We are nature loving beasts and should be inspired by the tranquility of the outdoors allowing us to behave in a more peaceful and loving manner. That is some serious hippie mojo right there.
It is better to offer differing opinions in a friendly fashion, therefore, allowing us to achieve the ultimate goal of convincing this climate denier about the error in his or her thinking.
Simply put I offer 2 analogies for all climate deniers.
First one. No one puts water in their fuel tank because it is bad for your car. Why? Because you cannot change the chemical composition of fuel and expect it to continue to work based on the mechanics of an internal combustion engine. The atmosphere is the same thing. You cannot add numerous heat-trapping chemicals to the composition of the atmosphere and expect it to not be affected.
If 97 percent of a scientist agree that climate change is real and it is human induced and there is an argument about the validity of that then there must be some underlying reason for the disagreement. In Trump's and the GOP's case it is money. Specifically special interest groups that fund their campaigns. Our officials want to be elected and those folks have the dollars to do it. Welcome to America.
Second analogy and this is riding the coattails of Arnold Schwarzenegger. He posted this on his facebook. Saying he did not care if you believe in climate change or not he offered a simple choice. There are 2 garages both with cars running. One has a normal car the other is an EV (Electric Vehicle). If given the choice of a garage to be locked in for an hour which one would you choose.
Now to this knock on the NPS because of the choice to not use a rail system on the South Rim. I will state that I did not research this before making this observation. That is on purpose mind you. It is very likely that the reason the NPS did not do this because it was cost prohibitive. If not the cost then maybe it was political. If not political then maybe it was a bureaucratic mess that serves no other purpose other than to waste funds. If it was the best most logical and environmentally friendly option then one should assume that a lot of people in the NPS would want the rail system. Speak with a park ranger sometime and I am guessing their ideals differ from what actually happens in a park. I know this to be true personally.
Perhaps those wasted funds devoted to creating a rail system could have been used in other ways to protect the environment. That may have been the best option but because of the backlog of park maintenance(which Kurt writes about) and lack of funds, such frivolities may not be possible You cannot change the way things are just because it makes sense to do so. That is not how we roll.
If our world was perfect then there would be no reason for movies such as Keanu Reeves "The Day the Earth Stood Still." Spoiler Alert: He was alien that came to earth to destroy it so it could be reborn because we are such inept fools. Welcome to Humanity.
Lastly and most important. What was this post about? It was about the NPS standing up in clever ways. How this invites cynicism I am not sure. We should be proud of the National Park System for resisting in such contentious times. This stuff is just epic and that is what makes humanity awesome. We still have a lot to learn but we are at least trying!!!!
But they don't.
As to the garage analogy it is a false choice. How about you sit in the garage with the gas car or suck on the exhaust of a coal fired electic plant. Or of course, you could open the garage door and fear neither.
They don't ecbuck? I am a little baffled by that comment. I am guessing you are old enough to remember leaded gas. Yeah that is right we put lead in our gas and it rained down from the heavens and that was perfectly okay with a certain percentage of scientist so it took years for us to remove lead from our gasoline. Can we agree that lead is bad for us and that maybe it was a bit absurd to think leaded gasoline would not have detrimental effects? Sometimes scientist eschew the facts to achieve a goal. Do you really think these scientists are in on some big ponzi scheme that will allow them to get rich by telling everyone climate change is real? I am thinking that most would prefer that they are wrong because what do they achieve by saying it is.
What percentage of scientist that do not agree it is human induced or that it is even happening work for a special interest group. Just wondering if you think about that. If you need to call 100 scientists that work in a field related to earth and I am guessing that number will be 100%. I get all my science from Bill Nye the Science guy so I base my beliefs on the fact that he looks like a smart science dude. You know with the bow tie and all.
The analogy being a false choice. Once again I am a little confused. It is an analogy. That is it just an analogy. If you have trouble with it bring that up with Arnold.
I do breathe in the exhaust from a coal fire electric plant as I hike next to one. That is correct right next to one. As a matter of a fact I hike next to the coal ash pond for that electric plant.
I have been in a garage with a car on as I work on my own vehicles from time to time. I do not like it so I am going to pass. Even with the garage door open it just gets all up in your nose and the next thing you know you are smelling oil for 2 days.
What I am going to do is to go camping. I am going to have a good time and I am going to love every second of it. You can just be as hateful as you want. I am going to go canoeing and cook some food and spend some time with my wife. You just keep that sour puss on and I will see you on the flip side.
Talk to the hand!
Don't know why you are baffled. If you have made any effort to find out the source of those claims you would know those numbers are as manufactured as the ones used in the AGW models.