To be fair, it's mostly an island of plastic. And if you've heard about it, you're one of the few. Despite the fact that this particular island is twice the size of Texas, very few people even know it exists, unless you live on a shore in the western Pacific Ocean where the garbage has a tendency to wash ashore on. 

How was it created? Natural ocean currents have a tendency to gather the garbage from various parts of the Pacific Ocean and take all of it to one particular place, where it swirls and remains mostly stuck in one place, occasionally drifting to the nearby shores and polluting them with a thick sludge of plastic products. At one place in the "island," plastic can be measured at one million parts per square mile.

How did this happen? Well, all of this plastic started out on land. Through carelessness and/or ignorance, it made its way into the ocean through various channels. And while we may not see the result of throwing away a few plastic bottles here and there--and perhaps could argue that recycling those bottles is hardly economically "worth it"--there's no denying the consequences of what happens when we simply let discarded trash sit. And collect.

And collect.

And now entire ecosystems in the Pacific Ocean are forced to live with this constant threat. What effect will it have, and will it continue to grow? Plastic garbage in the ocean is becoming a greater problem with each passing year.  And this is one problem we can all fix without falling into partisan politics. All it takes is a little responsibility. A little reducing, a little reusing and a little recycling and an educated consumer base. Consider this next time you're planning on tossing away that plastic bottle. Maybe there's a recycling bin nearby.

Yours,

Ken Brosky 

I'm going to write about this once more later in the week, but for now take a look at this link:

How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Global Warming? 

The point of this particular post is mainly a very simple argument and that is this: nothing short of catastrophe will convince the skeptic movement at this point. It's literally impossible. The IPCC, in their eyes, is one big bureaucratic conspiracy, and the scientific "establishment" is flat-out wrong. There will never be enough evidence. Period.

And there's more. For the past three decades, members of the Modern Conservative Movement have gone out of their way to demonize environmentalism and block literally every single attempt to achieve clean energy. The motives changes from person to person, but the ultimate goal of marginalizing the environmental movement is identical in every aspect. After the democrats in Congress voted to mandate all light bulbs to be switched to energy efficient fluorescent bulbs (and will most likely follow suit with LED as it becomes available), the Conservative Movement was up in arms. Even in the Journal Sentinel, Patrick McIlheran argued what right do they have? How could they do this to our freedom? Big Government, blah blah blah

It's not a bad argument, but how long is it credible? The more energy we use, the more we will affect our planet, and when some people decide to use the less efficient light bulbs, that affects the freedom of everyone else. And we're talking about LIGHT BULBS. Light bulbs that can literally reduce our light-based energy consumption by 75 percent. So then the argument is that the bulbs have a little mercury. Okay. Good argument. So why not provide consumers with a simple way to recycle the used bulbs rather than completely abandon the idea? No, that would be too much. This is the EASIEST way to reduce our eco footprint, and there are Movement Conservatives going out of their way to oppose it.

This is nothing new. While in office, President Carter installed solar hot water panels on the White House. When Ronald Reagan took office, he removed them. He literally took them down despite the fact that they were functioning perfectly. This goes beyond criticism of environmentalism. This was a deliberate attack on the movement as a whole, regardless of the progress made up to that point and regardless of the benefits. It was borderline sadistic, and it set the tone for the way the Modern Conservative movement has reacted to any environmental progress.
 

Let's talk about Global Warming Denial within the U.S. Congress, specifically Senator Inhofe. For those of you who don't know Senator Inhofe, he gained a lot of media attention for releasing the "Inhofe 400," a list of 400 scientists who allegedly believed global warming was false. There's only one problem: most of the 400 have been thoroughly debunked. Not only have a majority of the scientists been completely debunked for various reasons, still more are actually coming out and REQUESTING to be taken off the list. Why? Because they believe global warming exists, and that it's caused partly by human beings. They don't want to be on the list!

But I digress. How about those scientists who argue that global warming is a hoax? Let's take a look at one--Chris Allen, a weather director from an ABC affiliate in southern Kentucky--from The Grist:

"My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus...did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do - rid the mere mention of God in any context. What these environmentalists are actually saying is "we know more than God - we're bigger than God - God is just a fantasy - science is real...He isn't...listen to US!" I have a huge problem with that."

 Ouch! That's a pretty tough argument for any scientist to debunk.

Kate Sheppard from the American Prospect sums up the "Inhofe 400" in the most concise, realistic way:

"It's not too hard to dredge up 400 people in all the world who think the lunar landing was a farce or believe that Elvis is living in Albuquerque, much like it isn't too hard to dig up 400 people with a vague background in the field of science who find something to dispute in climate science. That doesn't mean their views should be lauded and held up as scientific proof that global warming isn't so bad. There haven't been any peer-reviewed scientific studies validating any claims that the planet is either not warming, or not warming because of humans, and the world's most-respected climatologists are all in agreement."

Given it's Earth Day/Week (depending on who you talk to), I thought I'd pick out a few of the best articles I've found on Climate Progress that might be of interest.

NY Times Magazine -- ... is full of junk. Don't bother reading it, and by the way those little articles about global warming you see occasionally? Try to avoid those, too. What relatively little journalism remains at this point is focused entirely on Obama's "bitter" comments. This is a good article for those who believe everything they read.

Future Cars -- One new car gets up to 300 miles per gallon, and guess what? It's already a hot commodity in California, where it's raked up 1,400+ pre-orders. Also, the article looks at a Nova story with more information about newer cars.

Carbon-Saving Ideas -- I particularly enjoyed this piece, because it shows just how much a few small, bright ideas can add up when it comes to cutting Co2. California has a lot on its plate, attempting to reduce carbon emissions by 30 percent, but it's finding that the easiest way to do it is to rely on a variety of smaller initiatives that aren't costly and easy to implement. Good to think about, given Wisconsin will probably have something like this soon (only it'll be 10 percent, most likely). 

 Let's have a little fun today. Today we're going to take a look at a conservative hit piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and we're going to dissect it. We're going to take it apart and examine it much in the same way you might examine a frog in Science class. Why do we examine frogs in science class? Why, to learn from them, of course! So it goes with this particular editorial. We're going to learn about it so we can more readily identify hit pieces in the future (and there are a LOT of hit pieces out there). This is going to be a great time.

First, read this editorial by Al Smith.

Fun, isn't it? Before we delve into things, we need to create our first rule. This is an important rule because it will distinguish Hit Pieces from other editorials.

Rule #1: Hit Pieces generally target positive groups, like environmentalism.

Next, we're going to take a look at the wording. This piece is filled with negative words, and they're all aimed at the environmentalism movement.Radicals, zealots, criminal selfishness ... all of these words have one goal in mind: to demonize environmentalism to the reader will not identify with it. The more Smith demonizes them, the less the reader is likely to say, "Hey! I'm an environmentalist!" No reader is going to say that if the environmentalists are radical zealots bent on shutting down all of our electricity, right? Well, few would, at least. But the goal, obviously, is to put the reader on Smith's side. The more he can negatiely portray the environmental movement, the more he's free to ridicule it, and the more he's free to ridicule it, the more readers will identify with his position. The environmental movement exists as "factions," and its attempts at creating awareness are little more than "spectacles" at best. You get the picture. So let's create another rule:

Rule #2: Hit Pieces rely on negative words to ensure readers do not identify with the target (in this case, environmentalism)

Now let's take a look at the imagery. The world according to Al Smith is a scary place, and the environmental movement is only making things worse. Images of empty cars and streets, the "Dark Ages," empty factories ... this piece has it all. If you're an environmentalist, says Smith, then you obviously want to destroy our very way of life. Powerful stuff, and these images are peppered throughout (and usually associated with the negative words we looked at before). Smith even goes so far as to quote a diplomat from World War I, and this is not unintentional. Smith is conjuring up powerful images without explicitly mentioning it. When we think of World War I, the words "Senseless" and "violence" have a tendency to come to mind, and it's no mistake that he's using this World War I quote. His goal is to ensure readers are relating the "senselessness" of the environmental movement with the senselessness of World War I, as well as all the violent imagery that goes along with it. Let's make another rule:

Rule #3: Hit Pieces use negative, scary and oftentimes violent imagery to demonize their target

 There is more at work here. In order to make his point more succinct, Smith attempts to group environmentalists together by suggesting NOTHING is good enough for them except complete abandonment of electricity in general. No solution works, only MORE government, MORE regulation. He also relies heavily on the old tirades of the conservatives, including the evils of government, the loss of "Freedom" and of course those pesky new light bulbs that are just too efficient. There's only one problem with this argument: the entire point of Earth Hour was to make a very specific statement:

Human beings are willing to regulate themselves.

That was the point, wasn't it? Smith even mentions this early on in his piece, that the idea was that human beings are not so indentured to technology that they can't turn out a light for an hour, the idea that human beings can make a BIG difference without government help. Sure, it would be nice if our government enforced basic environmental regulations, But under the Bush administration, that's not going to happen. They believe in market-based regulation, and while it's a noble ideal, it just isn't going to happen. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says, the free market is incapable of controlling pollution, so there HAS to be government involvement.

Events like Earth Hour frighten Smith because they show him that he's in an extreme minority. While others are attempting to solve the problems facing our generation and future generation, Smith is unwilling to offer solutions himself, relying instead on attacking everyone else. He's takes solace in knowing the Irish pubs and the Chinese are on his side (as if this is truly something to be bragging about: the Chinese government also sides with the Sudanese government, right?), and attempts to demonize environmentalists much in the same way conservatives have been doing so largely since Rush Limbaugh made his debut.

All right, enough ranting. I think you get the picture. Hopefully, by carefully examining this, you'll be able to spot these pieces in the future. Learn from them. As wrong as they may be, they're a powerful method being used by the modern conservative movement and deserve attention.

 
Yours,

Ken Brosky