Mandy asks…
Why is Obama having Napolitano claim climate change is the greatest risk we face in America?
And it’s just weird to hear Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, describe her department’s focus on environmental justice and climate adaptation. (Audio, our transcript):
So as we look at climate change, the climate change that we are in, and think about the environmental phenomenon that is happening in the course of our own lives, we translate that into increased drought. We translate that into increased likelihood of wildfires, particularly catastrophic fires in the West, we translate that into more category four and five hurricanes, and that affects communities around the gulf but also up and down the Atlantic seaboard and the Pacific as well, and other natural occurrences that are affected by changes in climate.
Changes in climate really translate into huge environmental changes that have impacts on communities and also on national security, because they raise not only the issues of making sure that we are taking into account and caring for the most at-risk populations, but that we are also looking at and planning for the potentiality of mass migrations, demographic changes, patterns, concentrations of economic assets, population growth in different areas, deteriorating infrastructure. All of this gets knit together under this umbrella of climate change and environmental adaptation.
That’s an expansive, expensive agenda, isn’t it? We thought Congress formed the Department of Homeland Security to more effectively address imminent threats to the American people, priorities like fighting terrorism, controlling our borders, and handling security at our ports and airports. Turns out the Department is instead working on EVERYTHING!
http://shopfloor.org/2010/12/if-jobs-are-the-priority-whats-environmental-justice/16902
http://shopfloor.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Napolitano-at-Environmental-Justice-Conference.pdf
The Expert answers:
This is an end run around congress. The Department of Homeland Security has shown its willingness to spend beyond its budget and even against the explicit wishes of congress. So far it has used millions of dollars from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act fund that was originally designed as a stimulus for the economy. Napolitano is pretty much claiming that everything and anything is a security issue and deserves new technology, staffing and, of course, funding.
Ruth asks…
Somebody could translate it into Spanish? 10 points + 5 stars?
Cheryl: So, Nick, you’ve worked as an environmental scientist in Australia.
Nick: Yeah, I have. I worked in my hometown in Tasmania, and in Tasmania, there’s many environmental issues, particularly involving logging of native forests there.
Cheryl: Oh, logging.
Nick: Yeah, logging.
Cheryl: I recently heard about logging problems in Brazil, I mean Belize in Central America. But what kind of logging issues do you have in Tasmania?
Nick: So, in Tasmania, there’s some very old forests, maybe hundreds of thousands of years old, and some companies are destroying them, clear-filling the forest, parts of the forest there.
Cheryl: Really! What are the companies using the forests for?
Nick: To make paper actually. To make wood chips, and then turn wood chips into paper.
Cheryl: So, there all paper companies?
Nick: Mm, paper companies.
Cheryl: Oh, really.
Nick: Or paper companies in the end. So initially, loggers, the people which log, go in, they take the trees, they take the trees to big industry, which then break them to wood chips, then make them into paper. And my job was to try to find out how we could minimize the destructiveness of that operation.
Cheryl: So what kind of destructiveness would the impact of having deforestation in Tassie …?
Nick: In Tassie?
Cheryl: Well, like many animals die obviously, and much biodiversity is taken away, but there’s ways to change that process and make it better, so some solutions are instead of clear-filling, just destroying the entire forest section, just take sections out of the forests. Make the forests look like, maybe a checkerboard, so you only take patches of forests, small patches and hopefully don’t kill too many animals in the process.
Cheryl: But wouldn’t that still destroy a percentage of wildlife living in those patches?
Nick: Yes, yeah, it will but we still use paper everywhere in the world, so if we use paper, well, the trees need to come from somewhere, so we need to get the practice possible.
Cheryl: Mm, I see.
Nick: So, it’s a bit of give-and-take.
Cheryl: We can’t stop using paper right?
Nick: Oh, I think we should stop using paper. I think we can, but at this stage it’s difficult maybe.
The Expert answers:
Cheryl: Por lo tanto, Nick, que ha trabajado como científico ambiental en Australia.
Nick: Sí, yo tengo. Trabajé en mi ciudad natal en Tasmania, y en Tasmania, está ahí muchas cuestiones medioambientales, con especial participación de la tala de los bosques nativos allí.
Cheryl: ¡Oh, la explotación forestal.
Nick: Sí, la explotación forestal.
Cheryl: Recientemente he oído hablar de los problemas de la tala en Brasil, me refiero a Belice en América Central. Pero, ¿qué tipo de problemas de registro tiene usted en Tasmania?
Nick: Por lo tanto, en Tasmania, hay algunos bosques muy antiguos, tal vez cientos de miles de años, y algunas empresas los están destruyendo, claro-que llena el bosque, las partes de la selva allí.
Cheryl: En serio! ¿Cuáles son las empresas que utilizan los bosques para?
Nick: Para hacer el papel en realidad. Para hacer las virutas de madera, y luego girar a astillas de madera en papel.
Cheryl: Por lo tanto, no todas las empresas de papel?
Nick: Mm, las empresas de papel.
Cheryl: Oh, de verdad.
Nick: O papel de las empresas en el final. Así que al principio, los madereros, las personas que de registro, entrar, que toman los árboles, se llevan los árboles de la gran industria, que a su vez a romper con las virutas de madera, a continuación, convertirlos en papel. Y mi trabajo consistía en tratar de averiguar cómo podemos minimizar la destrucción de esa operación.
Cheryl: ¿Qué tipo de destrucción que el impacto de tener la deforestación en Tassie …?
Nick: En Tassie?
Cheryl: Bien, al igual que muchos animales mueren por supuesto, y mucha biodiversidad se quita, pero hay maneras de cambiar ese proceso y hacerlo mejor, por lo que algunas soluciones están en lugar de clara de relleno, sólo la destrucción de la sección de bosque entero, tome secciones de de los bosques. Hacer que los bosques se parecen, tal vez un tablero de ajedrez, por lo que sólo tienen los parches de bosques, pequeños parches y esperemos que no matan a demasiados animales en el proceso.
Cheryl: ¿Pero no sería que aún destruir un porcentaje de la fauna silvestre en los parches?
Nick: Sí, sí, pero todavía se utiliza papel en todo el mundo, así que si el uso de papel, así, los árboles que venir de alguna parte, por lo que necesitamos para conseguir la práctica posible.
Cheryl: Mm, ya veo.
Nick: Por lo tanto, es un poco de dar y tomar.
Cheryl: No podemos dejar de usar el derecho de papel?
Nick: Oh, creo que deben dejar de usar papel. Creo que podemos, pero en este momento es difícil tal vez.
Thomas asks…
Who are the real anagonists in the political life of America today?
Is it really a political war between cons and libs or have the neocons managed to get us to fight with each other and ignore the real threat that they pose to our civil liberties, economic and environmental health….real conservatives and liberals have both evolved as time goes by, sometimes I have agreed more with conservatives on some issues, sometimes more with liberals…for instance, I thought Clinton should have been removed from office, not because of his affair, but because he lied to a grand jury….all my life I have respected the position of conservatives whether I agree or not, argue strongly, then go have a beet together, but lately the atmosphere has been poisoned.
The Expert answers:
Political bigots.
If you hate half the country, you are not of interest to me. You have divided this nation.
I am a democrat (not a liberal, not a socialist).
I do NOT hate any political party (I oppose some of their goals).
My country comes BEFORE my political party.
Antagonists? Political bigots and those who put their own ideology AHEAD of their country.
We may disagree on the direction the United States should go, but we need brakes and gas no matter what direction we are headed, and as a democrat who believes in:
Free speech, I must support republican talk radio’s rights;
Freedom of expression, I must support fundamentalist Christians;
Equality, I must support white men as well.
I may find some things they do as contemptible, but THEY are not contemptible.
That one difference makes the whole game different.
Betty asks…
Does this surprise anyone concerning Obama?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20100121/pl_bloomberg/a8uii1bcrdmy
Let’s be real, Obama never had a real job in his life, never had to work for a living and no wonder investors don’t trust him on his ability to handle the issues of America. Dana once said that Obama was the best environmental president ever. Wow, Obama most likely never once considered the environment or ever walked in the wilderness in his entire life yet a liberal thinks he is an environmentalist. Lot’s of Wilderness areas in Chicago I hear.
Beren, the climate hoax is a political issue. Where have you been?
The Expert answers:
Obama is so clueless
I am looking for real change on January 20, 2013
and the next election is going to be a hoot
God Bless America
Helen asks…
Do you support “America’s Climate Security Act of 2007?”?
S. 2191 was introduced Oct. 18th by Senators Lieberman and Warner, who are Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection.
A key supporter of the bill, Environmental Defense, issued a statement saying that the bill would require that covered sectors, about 80% of the U.S. economy, reduce emissions by 15% below 2005 levels in 2020, a “strong target” that they say “helps put the U.S. on the path to much deeper reductions by the middle of the century.”
The bill also has support from the National Wildlife Federation, Exelon Corporation, PGE Corp; Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies.
http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/acsabill.pdf
The Expert answers:
As the US economy is so large it must show Leadership to the rest of the world on Climate change.As they consume nearly 50% of all consumables and are less than 10% of the total worlds population, surely in your hearts you know you are lieing to yourselves, when you say others are trying to cheat you, the only ones who cheated you are the Rich in your own country who would exploit you just as much as they would the third world.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers