The Environment Thread

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

5 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Now this has absolutely huge implications if what they are theorizing is correct, their paper is in the peer review stage. 

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

I'm going to go out on a limb here and dismiss it outright because of his lengthy history of lying about this:

 

Favourite climate myths by Christopher Monckton

Below are many of the climate myths used by Christopher Monckton plus how often each myth has been used.

Climate myths by Monckton	What the Science Says	Usage
"Climate sensitivity is low"	Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.	15
"Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated"	Sea level rise is now increasing faster than predicted due to unexpectedly rapid ice melting.	11
"Hockey stick is broken"	Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.	10
"Sea level rise is exaggerated"	A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.	9
"Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer"	This argument uses regional temperature data that ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began.	9
"Medieval Warm Period was warmer"	Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.	9
"It's cooling"	The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.	9
"IPCC overestimate temperature rise"	Monckton used the IPCC equation in an inappropriate manner.	8
"CO2 limits will harm the economy"	The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.	7
"There's no tropospheric hot spot"	We see a clear "short-term hot spot" - there's various evidence for a "long-term hot spot".	7
"Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain"	Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain.	7
"It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940"	The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940.	7
"Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity"	Lindzen and Choi’s paper is viewed as unacceptably flawed by other climate scientists.	6
"Models are unreliable"	Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.	6
"Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming"	There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.	6
"IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period"	The IPCC simply updated their temperature history graphs to show the best data available at the time.	6
"Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming"	Extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by global warming.	5
"IPCC is alarmist"	Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.	5
"Climate's changed before"	Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.	5
"Greenland is gaining ice"	Greenland on the whole is losing ice, as confirmed by satellite measurement.	5
"It's global brightening"	This is a complex aerosol effect with unclear temperature significance.	5
"CO2 limits will make little difference"	If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale.	5
"Arctic was warmer in 1940"	The actual data show high northern latitudes are warmer today than in 1940.	5
"It hasn't warmed since 1998"	Every part of the Earth's climate system has continued warming since 1998, with 2015 shattering temperature records.	4
"It's not bad"	Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.	4
"Oceans are cooling"	The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming.	4
"An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature"	CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we decrease emissions, global warming will accelerate this century.	4
"CO2 lags temperature"	CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.	4
"Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy"	A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.	4
"Al Gore got it wrong"	Al Gore's book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.	4
"It's the sun"	In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions	4
"Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle"	Thick Arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat.	4
"It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low"	Early 20th century warming is due to several causes, including rising CO2.	3
"Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use"	Most glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, notwithstanding a few complicated cases.	3
"There's no empirical evidence"	There are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global warming.	3
"Temp record is unreliable"	The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.	3
"It's Urban Heat Island effect"	Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.	3
"Climate scientists are in it for the money"	Climate scientists could make far more money in other careers - most notably, working for the oil industry.	3
"Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected"	This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia.	3
"There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature"	There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature; other effects are short-term.	3
"Greenland was green"	Other parts of the earth got colder when Greenland got warmer.	3
"Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC?"	Official records, Editors and emails suggest CRU scientists acted in the spirit if not the letter of IPCC rules.	2
"2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells"	A cold day in Chicago in winter has nothing to do with the trend of global warming.	2
"Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong"	Jim Hansen had several possible scenarios; his mid-level scenario B was right.	2
"IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers"	Glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite 1 error in 1 paragraph in a 1000 page IPCC report.	2
"CO2 limits will hurt the poor"	Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change.	2
"Antarctica is gaining ice"	Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.	2
"Polar bear numbers are increasing"	Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.	2
"Greenland ice sheet won't collapse"	When Greenland was 3 to 5 degrees C warmer than today, a large portion of the Ice Sheet melted.	2
"Ocean acidification isn't serious"	Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains.	2
"Arctic sea ice has recovered"	Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat.	2
"We're coming out of the Little Ice Age"	Scientists have determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming.	2
"CO2 was higher in the past"	When CO2 was higher in the past, the sun was cooler.	2
"CO2 is plant food"	The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors	2
"Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995"	Phil Jones was misquoted.	2
"Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????"	Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.	2
"There is no consensus"	97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.	2
"Sea level is not rising"	The claim sea level isn’t rising is based on blatantly doctored graphs contradicted by observations.	2
"Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009"	Winter snow cover in 2008/2009 was average while the long-term trend in spring, summer, and annual snow cover is rapid decline.	1
"Satellites show no warming in the troposphere"	The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.	1
"It's microsite influences"	Microsite influences on temperature changes are minimal; good and bad sites show the same trend.	1
"CO2 has a short residence time"	Excess CO2 from human emissions has a long residence time of over 100 years	1
"Glaciers are growing"	Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.	1
"CO2 is just a trace gas"	Many substances are dangerous even in trace amounts; what really matters is the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.	1
"Ice Sheet losses are overestimated"	A number of independent measurements find extensive ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland.	1
"CO2 is not a pollutant"	Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant	1
"Corals are resilient to bleaching"	Globally about 1% of coral is dying out each year.	1
"Tuvalu sea level isn't rising"	Tuvalu sea level is rising 3 times larger than the global average.	1
"Ice age predicted in the 70s"	The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.	1
"Coral atolls grow as sea levels rise"	Thousands of coral atolls have "drowned" when unable to grow fast enough to survive at sea level.	1
"Peer review process was corrupted"	An Independent Review concluded that CRU's actions were normal and didn't threaten the integrity of peer review.	1
"It's not urgent"	A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.	1
"It's not us"	Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.	1
"Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass"	Greenland's ice loss is accelerating & will add metres of sea level rise in upcoming centuries.	1
"Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted"	Weather is chaotic but climate is driven by Earth's energy imbalance, which is more predictable.	1
"It's freaking cold!"	A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.	1
"Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project"	The 'OISM petition' was signed by only a few climatologists.	1
"It's too hard"	Scientific studies have determined that current technology is sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid dangerous climate change.	1
"Animals and plants can adapt"	Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.	1
"Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature"	The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.	1
"Southern sea ice is increasing"	Antarctic sea ice has grown in recent decades despite the Southern Ocean warming at the same time.	1
"CRU tampered with temperature data"	An independent inquiry went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results.	1
"It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation"	The PDO shows no trend, and therefore the PDO is not responsible for the trend of global warming.	1
"Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming"	Trenberth is talking about the details of energy flow, not whether global warming is happening.	1
"Clouds provide negative feedback"	Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.	1
"IPCC graph showing accelerating trends is misleading"	All of the statements made in the IPCC report regarding the figure in question are correct and supported.

Edited March 15, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

6 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Now this has absolutely huge implications if what they are theorizing is correct, their paper is in the peer review stage. 

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

I will even add this cool little pdf  with examples where Monckton misrepresents the very scientists whose work he cites and the scientists who in their own words explain how Monckton misrepresents their research.

https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

[pigseye]

But if the paper passes peer review and is published is all that matters. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

22 minutes ago, pigseye said:

This is actually true for land surface temperatures, nobody disputes that. The oceans continued to warm which kept global temperatures creeping up. 

https://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

"The Remote Sensing System temperature data, promoted by many who reject mainstream climate science and especially most recently by Sen. Ted Cruz, now shows a slight warming of about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1998. Ground temperature measurements, which many scientists call more accurate, all show warming in the past 18 years.

"There are people that like to claim there was no warming; they really can't claim that anymore," said Carl Mears, the scientist who runs the Remote Sensing System temperature data tracking."

The study refutes the idea of a pause in global warming, "but frankly common sense and looking at how Earth was responding over the past 18 years kind of makes this finding a 'duh' moment," wrote University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd.

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

5 minutes ago, pigseye said:

But if the paper passes peer review and is published is all that matters. 

I wouldn't hold my breath.... Just a word of caution.

[kelownabomberfan]

NASA now hiding things on their website...can't let that nasty Sun get in the way of a good scary fairy tale about global apocalypse!

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/nasa-hides-page-saying-the-sun-was-the-primary-climate-driver-and-clouds-and-particles-are-more-important-than-greenhouse-gases/

[kelownabomberfan]

21 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and dismiss it outright 

what a surprise.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

4 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

what a surprise.

Why would anyone give a serial liar the benefit of the doubt? That's dumb and wasteful of one's time. 

 

Explain to me why one should give this serial liar a platform at all?

Edited March 15, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[pigseye]

20 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

https://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

"The Remote Sensing System temperature data, promoted by many who reject mainstream climate science and especially most recently by Sen. Ted Cruz, now shows a slight warming of about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1998. Ground temperature measurements, which many scientists call more accurate, all show warming in the past 18 years.

"There are people that like to claim there was no warming; they really can't claim that anymore," said Carl Mears, the scientist who runs the Remote Sensing System temperature data tracking."

The study refutes the idea of a pause in global warming, "but frankly common sense and looking at how Earth was responding over the past 18 years kind of makes this finding a 'duh' moment," wrote University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd.

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EA000443

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718331978

One study, well here's two new ones that say otherwise, even the IPCC acknowledged the pause. 

[pigseye]

8 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Why would anyone give a serial liar the benefit of the doubt? That's dumb and wasteful of one's time. 

 

Explain to me why one should give this serial liar a platform at all?

If the results are correct who cares? 

[kelownabomberfan]

24 minutes ago, pigseye said:

If the results are correct who cares? 

and the irony of serial liars calling Monkton a serial liar shouldn't be lost on anyone.  "He disagrees with us" = serial liar.  This is what "science" is now reduced to.  

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

22 minutes ago, pigseye said:

If the results are correct who cares? 

Sure. When it's been peer reviewed and withstands scientific community  scrutiny- then fine, but I am not going to waste my time

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

and the irony of serial liars calling Monkton a serial liar shouldn't be lost on anyone.  "He disagrees with us" = serial liar.  This is what "science" is now reduced to.  

Being completely wrong and continuing to spout the same garbage lies after being completely refuted is a far cry from denouncing someone as a liar because he disagrees... hes called a serial liar for... lying repeatedly. Please stop equating the two- you are just propagating the lie and if you continue people might come to the conclusion that you are a liar too. NOT saying you are- just that some people MIGHT think you are purposely trolling and lying.

I will treat "Lord" Monckton's opinion the same as I would treat the opinion of a flat-earther. It amounts to the same. 

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[JCon]

3 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I will treat his opinion the same as I would treat the opinion of a flat-earther. It amounts to the same. 

 

They just continue to lower the bar. They're willing to give anyone with the same opinion as them the benefit of the doubt. But, when you present overwhelming evidence contradicting them, it's YOU that's attacking science because YOU don't agree. 

 

[blue_gold_84]

What are his lordship's credentials? Oh, yeah... He's got a Master of Arts in Classics and a journalism diploma.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

4 minutes ago, JCon said:

They just continue to lower the bar. They're willing to give anyone with the same opinion as them the benefit of the doubt. But, when you present overwhelming evidence contradicting them, it's YOU that's attacking science because YOU don't agree. 

 

Yup, bit of psychological projecting or trolling there.

 

Regardless- we all see what it is, so we call it out and move on. Continue the discussion and try to keep it grounded in facts and free of misinformation.

Edited March 15, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

3 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

What are his lordship's credentials? Oh, yeah... He's got a Master of Arts in Classics and a journalism diploma.

I dont think that should immediately discount him from the discussion... his serial lying and paid shill-ways do immediately discount him.

[blue_gold_84]

12 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I dont think that should immediately discount him from the discussion... his serial lying and paid shill-ways do immediately discount him.

I guess I'm curious as to what makes him any sort of scientific expert on the matter to quote him in this thread, especially when his track record on said matter is detestable at best.

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

Edited March 15, 2019 by blue_gold_84
link added

[kelownabomberfan]

1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

. Continue the discussion and try to keep it grounded in facts and free of misinformation.

That should be everyone's goal.  Unfortunately, unless the "facts" support only the apocalyptic world-ending view, then it must be "misinformation".  And that's the problem.

[kelownabomberfan]

Here's an open letter to all of the indoctrinated kids who skipped school today for "Climate Strike" (yuck)...

By Brian Dingwall, New Zealand

Hi Kids,

Many of you will be marching today, demonstrating for an issue you believe to be very important.

Many years ago, I was young, well informed, and absolutely convinced I knew enough to make good decisions for the future of the world, and couldn’t understand just how obtuse all the oldies were, how they just didn’t know the stuff I had just learned.

Malthusian economics drove most of us, the Club of Rome had reported, and to my subsequent shame, I confess that in 1975 I voted for the Values Party….I wanted a better world, I knew resources were on the verge of running out, the population was out of control, and we were polluting our one and only planet. It was, I thought, time for the change that was so desperately required

The Values party did not get in, to our surprise the resources did not run out, Simon won his bet with catastrophist Erhlich, as countries became more wealthy they cleaned up their environments, particularly water, farmlands, and air.

China is now wealthy enough to be doing exactly that right now, following in the footsteps of Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. We certainly never see the famous foaming rivers of industrial Japan anymore.

Economists now understand that the ultimate resource, the human imagination, never runs out.

So is it likely to be with climate change. I urge you to never abandon your scepticism, for a critical mind is your most important asset.

Be able to articulate exactly what evidence has persuaded you to your opinion. Opinions though, are not evidence. Consensus is not evidence.

The world has many historic consensuses that have turned out to not be so. So far, I don’t mind sharing with you, I have yet to be persuaded.

My background is in science, with a smattering of economics, and statistics and I well understand the case for catastrophic climate change. I find it unconvincing.

As do a raft of well qualified experts in many fields, even Nobel prize winners, and I urge you to find out who they are, and why they have reservations.

There are two sides to this debate, but only one is well resourced, so you have to work a bit harder to find the arguments of the sceptical scientists.

One of the very great tragedies of the whole issue is that since 1990, it has been very difficult for scientists to garner resources from governments to research natural climate change, but we can be certain that the forces that wreaked great climate changes in the past are still active, and may be a much greater magnitude than those wreaked by CO2.

For today please reflect on these things:

All the CO2 being released today is simply being returned to the atmosphere whence it came, and is now available to the biosphere, which we can see is already flourishing as a result. Global temperatures have increased (about 0.7C degrees in last 100 years) ever since the little ice age, and continue to but at nothing like the rate predicted by climate models.

We live from the equator to (nearly) the poles, and hence are particularly adaptable, and will adapt to minor temperature changes and have in the past through climate optima, and little ice ages.

Much of the land surface of the earth is too cold for habitation or agriculture, some warming of the northern latitudes of Canada and Russia for example will be welcomed.

Here in New Zealand, we produce food for the world, with one of, if not the lowest “carbon footprints” of any country. Should you actually succeed in killing this industry, that production will be conducted elsewhere, at a higher carbon cost…..so the improvement as you see it, in New Zealand’s emissions will be more than offset by extra emissions elsewhere….we will be adding to the problem, not mitigating it.

It is also very important that each of you understands that for any complex problem, there are a range of decisions, trade-offs, to be considered. Do we understand all the benefits that follow from the use of fossil fuels? How many of these are we prepared to sacrifice? What would a fossil fuel-less world look like for you (hint: I don’t think you would like it very much).

Have you read or even heard of the “moral case for fossil fuels”, and do you understand the extent to which they feed and clothe the world, provide us with our tools, and our leisure, empower our devices, and enable our travel at present? House us and clean us?

You are not informed if you only read one side of the case. I happen to believe in free markets, the economics of von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Simon, McCloskey, and many of the moderns but I have also read Marx, and various of the collectivist economists, you must know what all the opinion leaders are saying and why.

So do seek out “lukewarmers” like Curry, Lewis, Christy, Soon, Balunias, they will lead you to a raft of others “the counter-consensus” that you, like me, may find rather more convincing than the orthodox climate church.

Personally I have learned that what I knew at your age (vastly more than my parents knew, of course) was not always right….now captured in the expression “it’s not what we don’t know, it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so”.

We once believed in leeches, blood-letting, that washing our hands was not important, that continents didn’t drift, that stress causes ulcers, a daily aspirin is good, and that there is always an imminent catastrophe on the horizon that never materialises.

The question is whether what we know for sure that the specific climate change you worry about is human caused, will have a measurable and substantial impact, and is real. What climate change would have been quite natural? Will we look back in years to come and think “we believed what?”

Have we included accurately in our models the impacts of short and long term natural oceanic cycles, cosmic rays impact on cloud nucleation, clouds, the sun and sunspots, what, if anything, is there still that we don’t know that we don’t know? Can we get initial conditions right?

Always examine closely the logic of the case…we have only one world so all we can do is create computer models of the climate, and wait to see if nature tells us the models are a good approximation of the real world suitable for projecting future climates…..and if climate is a 30 year average of all our global “weather” then we probably have to wait at least two preferably more periods of 30 years simply to validate the models so 100 years or so.

So far the projections and predictions have been wildly wrong, the polar ice is healthy, the Manhattan freeway is not underwater, sea-level rise is not accelerating, and snow is far from “a thing of the past”. As climate scientist and keeper of one of the satellite records ironically observes “the models all agree the observations are wrong”.

And the economics don’t work, as Nobel prize winner Nordhaus teaches the cost of mitigation is an order of magnitude greater than the cost of the problem, so the cure is worse than the disease.

Don’t take my word for it, or anyone’s. Read for yourselves, go to source. Do not trust any scientist who calls a peer scientist a “denier”. Understand peer review, and that a peer reviewed paper is more often than not just the opening salvo in a chain of events that may or may not ultimately expose a scientific truth.

Be very careful of any theory where the accepted facts (historic temperatures, and the location and number of the thermometers)) change regularly to suit the narrative.

And finally, enjoy your day, be yourselves, trust your own judgment, read widely, and look behind the data to the motives of the players.

There is a (slim) chance you are right, but even if you are, trust in human ingenuity, that fabulous engine of change, to ensure survival not of the world as we know it, but of an even better world than previous generations enjoyed….we will not revert to sleeping with our food animals on dirt floors with unpainted walls! As humans have done for most of our time on earth….

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

That should be everyone's goal.  Unfortunately, unless the facts support only an the apocalyptic world-ending view scenario, then it must be "misinformation".  And that's the problem.

Fixed for accuracy. 

 

[kelownabomberfan]

2 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Fixed for accuracy. 

 

where is the accuracy exactly?  More like "fixed to suit an unsupportable narrative".

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

11 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

where is the accuracy exactly?  More like "fixed to suit an unsupportable narrative".

You mean other than the enormous amount of facts supporting human induced climate change, that I and other posters have posted for you? Or the dizzying amount of facts disproving most of your contrarian arguments?

[Mark F]

Governor Janet Mills announced that Maine has joined the United States Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of 21 states committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. 

Quote

 

"We do not need another report to tell us what we already know: that our climate is changing; that it is changing rapidly; that it will have profound implications for us and for future generations; and that there is limited time to address it.

We know this because, here in Maine, we are witnessing these changes firsthand:

-The Gulf of Maine is warming at a rate faster than 99 percent of the world’s oceans, driving our lobster populations further up the coast.

-Our coastal waters are growing more acidic, weakening the shells of lobsters, clams, scallops and oysters.

-Temperatures, along with our climate, are fluctuating more wildly, leading to natural disasters, increased tick populations and rising seas.

 I will introduce legislation to create the Maine Climate Council.

The Maine Climate Council will be responsible for developing an action plan and a timetable to meet our emission reduction goals and to ensure that Maine’s communities and economy are resilient to the effects of climate change.

The Climate Council will be comprised of commissioners and key state leaders, science and technical experts, non-profit leaders, and representatives of climate- impacted industries.

The Council will be established in statute. It will solicit public input and report regularly to the public on progress toward the following goals:

The Council will lead our efforts to reduce Maine greenhouse gas emissions. And, with the Council’s leadership, our state will achieve 80 percent renewable energy in our electricity sector by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050.

 

https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-announces-maine-has-joined-bipartisan-us-climate-alliance-2019-02-28

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

20 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Governor Janet Mills announced that Maine has joined the United States Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of 21 states committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. 

https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-announces-maine-has-joined-bipartisan-us-climate-alliance-2019-02-28

 

It's reassuring to see government at the state level tackle this issue when the government at the federal level do everything in their power to **** the planet. Thanks for the link.