Hey Rhys, how have you been man
I���ve been wondering if you read the article I wrote that I gave you a copy of at the meeting on wind power. If you did, what was your reaction to it, did you share it with anyone, and what were their reactions?
The reason I ask is because I am working on coming up with a way to better communicate the complexities of climate change science. Much has changed over the years since CO2 became the standard for addressing greenhouse gases. It���s being recommended that particular short lived gases can be targeting in the immediate term to stifle the changes in climate we are seeing now while CO2 can be addressed over a longer range. But understanding this approach is complex so the scientific community is having difficulty relating its new approach because the green movement has entrenched itself in CO2 based activism.
There really is a not of difference in the objective. Take coal for instance, it releases high amounts of nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere which can migrate great distances until it mixes with volatile organic compounds (VOC���s) to form low level ozone causing immediate changes in the climate of the region that the low level ozone is produced. But then ethanol is a massive source of VOC���s but it���s argued that it causes a lessening of emissions of CO2, which it���s arguable from many credible perspectives that it does not limit CO2 emissions over that of fossil fuels. But then that���s only if we are talking about anhydrous ethanol like we use now. Hydrous ethanol however lessens CO2 emissions while not causing the high VOC emissions.
You are likely an expert on the mindset of environmentalists activism in Washington DC. It would help me greatly to understand what your reaction was to my article was. Did it help you understand climate change science any better than you already do? Did it lend you information you were not familiar with?
I have been told by others in the green movement that CO2 is used as a standard to address a host of GHG issues to help simplify the science of climate change for the public. It was related to give me a sense that the activist who stated this was well aware of the science I was writing about while I felt that this was not a sincere characterization of why CO2 is put on the front lines as the cause of climate change when the best climatologists in the world say it is not what we should be focused on now but rather should be looking at mitigating VOC���s and nitrogen oxide emissions, and also nitrous oxide and methane.
My feeling is that the more complex aspects of climate change are not well understood by most leaders in the green movement. This would be evident by the fact that the higher emissions of VOC���s from ethanol as it relates to short term gas caused climate change has been overlooked while ethanol is still credited with lessening CO2 emissions, which everyone knows is not actually true anyway, it���s just politically acceptable to grant ethanol that one positive note without a great deal of argument against it. Meanwhile the politics supporting ethanol and CO2 caused global warming have lead to a total ignorance of the positive effects of hydrous ethanol for both equations.
I think great deal of positive momentum can be created by green leaders having a better understanding all of these issues. What I would like to see happen is a conference on these issues attended by leaders in the fields of science related to them, many of whom are outspoken on these issues but no one seems to know to be listening to them.
I was hoping my article would inspire a strong reaction from you leading to many questions and confusions that I happen to know some of the best minds in the world could better answers them than me who would like very much to come to Washington to be able to speak about it them. But I haven���t heard back from you so I am wondering if you read the article and if so, how can I better do to communicate my message to leaders of the green movement to get the kind of strong reaction to it that it deserves.
My concern is, take for instance, the recent wave of arctic like weather that has lead to reports about a coming ice age while many who were coming over the green movement are now skeptical about the veracity of CO2 fears for a future global warming where they are now becoming more concerned about the economy, which of course could lead to a great deal of polluting to get it going again if it weren���t for the fact that we elected Obama over McCain. If McCain had won the election, the green movement would be looking at every hard four years right now after this last blast of cold weather and the lowering of oil prices.
But if we were following the issue of climate change from a short term gas perspective, then we would know to look for a causing factor in any dramatic changes in climate, be it cooling, warming, drought, flooding, or anything abnormally violent. I���m working right now on a presentation to show a correction between the recent wave of cold weather changes and the slowing of production or shutting down of ethanol refineries across the Midwest. This has effected Europe as well. In fact anywhere in the world you find extreme climate problems, you find a lack of understanding of short term gas science and the use of anhydrous ethanol as fuel.
I feel like I am fighting the same kind of struggle I waged against polluters to find a way to get the environmentalist movement to look at this new direction for how to better address the issue of climate change. Apparently change does not come easy for anyone. In this case, I am wondering if this cold weather might have an influence on the climate change debate where the way equation sits right now, if the green movement doesn���t adopt a better way to ague its case, it could lose a lot of ground over the next six months.
I happened to be engaging a conservative blog at the time this cold wave started. I was trying to get to know them, to see how they think. I was role playing until they started debating how the arctic freeze proved global warming wasn���t real. So I came out of my shell and argued my point. I beat them hands down. This new direction works.
I���ve felt for a long time that my voice could lend a lot towards creating positive change but have not been able to break the train of thinking that surrounds beliefs that CO2 should be the focus of climate change activism. I think however the tides may be turning in my favor after the recent arctic blasts. If you have any thoughts on this, feel free to relate it to me. Perhaps you could pass my article around to a few other leaders in the green movement after which we could all meet to talk about it.
I am currently designing a booklet around the article that has charts and graphs that illustrate the meaning of the article in a very provoking and educating way that is unlike anything being spread around Washington right now. It will get a lot attention and bring big changes if promoted right. I would like support in getting it out and some input into its final content. So if you can think of a good team to put together that can best coordinate making some of these ideas happen efficiently and effectively, let���s talk about it.