WarrenS has taken on an admirable resolution: to send a letter to the editor (LTE) (or, well, a major politician) every single day, on the critical issues of climate change and energy. This discusses his approach and here is an amusing 'template' to for rapid letter writing.
Now, I have always written letters and even had many published -- just not one every day. WarrenS inspires me to do better.
Many newspapers state that they will reject letters that have been published elsewhere, thus I have not been blogging letters ... perhaps that should change. Thus, below is what might be the first in an "unpublished letters" series publishing some of those LTEs that don't get picked up by the editors.
All three of these went to The Editor, The Washington Post, and went, well, unpublished until now ...
Media responsibility for climate inaction in the Senate? 30 July 2010
Steven Stromberg, in How Washington failed on climate change, concludes that President Obama only could pursue a limited number of major initiatives. And, with the ability to have one big win, Obama chose health care over climate
Stromberg, deputy opinions editor of washingtonpost.com, has one glaring gap in an otherwise insightful piece: silence on any media responsibility for a political climate where climate legislation can become a backburner issue.
In recent weeks,
- Highest temperature records have been broken around the globe: Moscow, Kuwait, ...
- Scientific institutions have reported:
- And, so on ...
These types of stories, however, are not front page items for The Washington Post.
And, The Washington Post and Washingtonpost.com "opinions" section have had "balanced" reporting where those seeking to confuse people about the science are given equal -- or even greater -- billing as reality-based discussions.
That President Obama and the US Senate did not feel a great urgency to pass climate legislation is, in part, because Congress' home page paper has not accurately reported climate change and has give voice to those peddling falsehoods.
Sincerely,
A. Siegel
Climate change to drive increased Benedryl sales?
15 April 2010
To The Editor, The Washington Post
The effects of global warming are not abstract. We're feeling them in our noses. According to a just released National Wildlife Federation study, increased CO2 levels and longer growing seasons (did you know spring arrives 10-14 days earlier than just 20 years ago) increase pollen production. And, as global warming worsens, the pollen production will skyrocket. A doubling or tripling of ragweed allergens in the United States is going to have huge economic impacts. We already lose around $12 billion dollars a year to hay fever suffering; we lose over 14 million school and work days, over $15 billion in medical costs and over $5 billion in lost earnings a year to asthma. What will the Global Warming multiplier be?
But wait! There's more! Fungal production will probably quadruple with doubled CO2 levels; tree pollen levels are expected to increase drastically — and did I mention that poison ivy will be faster-growing and more virulent?
But it's not all bad news. Investing in pharmaceutical companies should be a winning strategy. As asthma and allergy debilitates huge segments of the population, we can sneeze all the way to the bank.
A. Siegel
Source: NWF Extreme Allergies & Global Warming
Recognizing Jim Hansen
28 June 2010
To the editor, The Washington Post,
This is the second time this year that NASA climatologist James Hansen has been awarded a major international prize for his work in environmental science. Dr. Hansen has just received the Blue Planet Prize, considered to be Japan's version of the Nobel Prize. Earlier this year he was given the Sophie Prize, perhaps the world's most prestigious award in climate science.
Both of these awards, however, seem to have gone utterly unnoticed and unremarked in pages of The Washington Post.
Attacks on climate scientists -- malicious attacks repeatedly proven to be based on falsehoods and misrepresentations -- have been reported, even receiving front-page coverage.
Here is a case where one of those targets for attack has received, repeatedly, significant recognition for his work. And, The Post has met that with silence.
Americans are confused about the state of climate science and scientists views on our changing world. Reporting that emphasizes conflict, that highlights attacks and controversy, and does not report on how the scientific community stands with Jim Hansen -- and not Jim Inhofe -- is one of the principle reasons for that confusion.
Jim Hansen's work more than merited these awards. Washington Post readers deserve to hear about them.
Sincerely,
A. Siegel