Dentsply Challenged to Phase-out Toxic Mercury Dental Fillings

Posted on May 22, 2013 by Keith Peterman

Mercury is pretty cool stuff!  It is the only metallic element that is a liquid at room temperature.   The dense, lustrous, silvery goo begs to be played with.  When I was a little kid growing up in the 1950’s, mercury was my version of play-dough—toss it onto the floor and it splatters into zillions of tiny little balls.  You can scrape it back together with a stiff piece of paper.  When the tiny silvery balls come in contact, they suck back together to make a wiggly blob.

As a chemistry professor, I am now keenly aware of the health hazards associated with mercury and its compounds.  One drop of dimethylmercury was enough to kill a Dartmouth College chemistry professor in 1997, even though she was wearing latex gloves.  The compound permeated the latex and was absorbed through her skin.  She experienced a slow, agonizing period of cognitive deficits, comma, and death.

Today (5/21/2013), at a press conference at the Yorktowne Hotel, environmental groups and shareholder advocates called on Dentsply International to remove mercury from its dental amalgams.  Its “humble beginnings” date back to 1899.  It now has operations in 40 countries and distributes products to over 120 countries.

dentsply bldg 2 v huff

Mary Lu Hale, Chair of the newly formed South Pennsylvanians for a Mercury-Free Environment, talked about her lifelong “friendship” with Dentsply.  Hale mentioned “weekend whitewater rafting” with Dentsply employees, the “important role” Dentsply plays in the community as a major employer, and her many visits to the corporate office as a service provider.

dentsply mary lu v2 huff

Hale said, “Dentsply’s reputation is now in jeopardy.”  She stated, “[many of us] were shocked to learn that this company is still manufacturing dental amalgam, an outdated product comprised of 50% mercury, a known neurotoxin, and reproductive toxin.”

Charlie Brown, who serves as National Counsel of Consumers for Dental Choice and is President of the World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry, said, “The world has come to York today…[because]…the world’s number two amalgam manufacturer is here in York.”  … Brown stated that crematoriums cannot be located next to schools because cremations release toxic mercury emissions from vaporized “silver fillings”.  Brown further noted, “When sewage sludge contaminated by amalgam is used as fertilizer, dental mercury contaminates our soil…when human waste from individuals with amalgam enters the wastewater, dental mercury reaches our water.”  Brown stated, “This is a wake-up call for Dentsply…140 nations have negotiated the 2013 Minamata Convention on Mercury which calls for the phase-down of dental mercury.  The World Health Organization has said that the dental industry must adapt.  The York community has asked Dentsply to take the lead in protecting our environment from dental mercury.  It is time for Dentsply to start phasing out the production of mercury amalgam.”

dentsply brown v2 huff

Dave Dietz is a local farmer following multiple generations who have tilled York County soil.   He practices 21st Century sustainable farming practices.  Dave talked about how mercury effects him (and all who eat) at the dinner table.  “I like to eat”, he said.  “What if you sat at the dinner table and a bottle of mercury was offered as a condiment?  Would you eat it?”  Likely not.  But, he said, “we are putting mercury into our ground” through wastewater sludge and other remediation.  Mercury enters the food chain and consumers suffer the consequences.

dentsply dave dietz v2 huff

It’s really a social justice issue according to Sister Valerie Heinonen, an Ursuline Sister who does shareholder advocacy for Mercury Investment Services and the Dominican Sister of Hope.  Sister Heinonen stressed that using amalgams for dental restoration is really a matter of “racial discrimination.”  From her experience, it is the poor, the disenfranchised, the low income African Americans who suffer the most.  Sister Heinonen stated, “For dentists to say that ‘We’ve always done it this way’ is a disgrace.”

dentsply sister heinonen v2 huff

Dr. Carol Layton is a general dentist from Hummelstown, PA who practices mercury free and mercury safe dentistry.  Dr. Layton stated, “I never use dental amalgam for any of my patients.  In fact, I have not used mercury in the last 26 years of my career.”  She continued, “There is no reason to use mercury in dentistry [today].”  She stated that “mercury-free alternatives to amalgam are far superior…[noting that]..resin composite fillings are effective, available and affordable for all.”  Dr. Layton said, “Every day I see teeth that have been damaged by amalgam fillings.”  She talked about how “healthy tooth structure” is compromised by “expansion and contraction of mercury [amalgam] over time.”  She noted, “In the long run, this can require more dental treatment and higher costs to patients.”

dentsply dr layton v2 huff

Sister Kathleen Coll—a sister of St. Joseph of Philadelphia—is a shareholder advocacy administrator for Catholic Health East located outside Philadelphia.  Sister Coll represented “a group of Dentsply shareholders who filed a proposal with Dentsply regarding a phase down of dental amalgam.”  However, their proposal was “omitted from the 2013 material for the Dentsply annual meeting held in York.”  Sister Coll expressed “grave concern” at this omission since the U.S. and 139 other countries adopted the Minamata Convention on Mercury.

dentsply sister call v2 huff

Sister Coll and all present at the press conference called on Dentsly International, the second largest global manufacturer of mercury-based dental amalgam, to phase down production of this toxic material.

What can you do to address this problem?  Ask your dentist, “Do you still use ‘silver’ fillings?”   Or, “Do you use 21st century mercury-free dental reconstruction practices?”

Posted in amalgam, mercury | Leave a comment

Earth Day 2013: The Face of Climate Change

Posted on April 21, 2013 by Keith Peterman

Earth Day Network is promoting “The Face of Climate Change” as the global theme for Earth Day 2013.  The goal is to put a real-world face on the remote concept of climate change.  During my research visits to various locations, I’ve encountered numerous faces linked to the climate change story.  Following is a sampling of these faces accompanied by brief narratives.

How Old Will You Be in 2050?

Gabrilla is a Hungarian Girl Scout I met at the 2009 UN climate conference in Copenhagen.  She was sporting a Girl Scout bandana and an orange tee-shirt pointedly asking climate negotiators, “How Old Will You Be In 2050?”  Her message was clear.  She told me, “We believe that the decisions that will be taken here will affect us and our children thereafter.”  Hope was high for Gabrilla and 100,000 other like-minded individuals who had converged on “Hopenhagen”.  Hope was so high that the conference resulted in the largest gathering of world leaders ever outside the UN in New York.  Even newly elected President Obama attended.  Unfortunately, like every previous climate conference, COP 15 was a bust.  Climate negotiators could only agree to “Take Note” of the Copenhagen Accord.  How will the climate in 2050 treat Gabrilla and her generation’s children and grandchildren?

First Species Level Extinction Linked to Climate Change

Each year I travel with a York College student group to Costa Rica on an ecological expedition focused on climate change and sustainability.  My oldest granddaughter Ally (now 6 years old) tagged along the last two years.  Pictured above, Ally listens intently to a naturalist in the Monteverde Cloud Forest Biological Reserve.  This Reserve is a hot-spot for adverse impacts due to climate change.  The Golden Toad (Bufo periglenes) was discovered here in 1964.  Unlike other dark, mottled toads, this species looked like it had been dipped in golden enamel.  Each spring, thousands of Golden Toads would emerge from the forest rubble to mate.  The last sighting in 1989 was a lone toad in search of a mate.  Found only within the reserve, the Golden Toad represented the first documented, species-level extinction linked to climate change.  We now know that climate change is affecting ecological systems and individual species around the world.  My deepest concern as a grandfather is what kind of Earth we are bequeathing to Ally, her younger bother and five younger cousins, and all children.

Improving Climate Literacy among U.S. Students

Climate science illiteracy is one of the greatest hurdles in advancing climate change legislation in the U.S.  Four students acting as UN accredited observers for the American Chemical Society (ACS) participated in the 2012 COP 18 In Doha, Qatar.  Their objective was to engage U.S. students in the climate change discourse with an outcome of increased climate literacy.  Using the UN as a platform, these students employed social networking to engage their peers back home.  This was the third year of the ACS student observer project.   The successful outcome of this continuing initiative will be a new generation’s active engagement in one of the most pressing issues of our time.

Arab Youth Demonstration

Arab youth will likely experience the severity of climate change more than most other areas of the world.  A recent Report by the World Bank warned that temperatures in the Arab world are increasing 50% faster than the global average.  Arab youth get it, even though their elders may not.  The picture above shows an unprecedented demonstration by Arab youth.  This protest was staged in Doha, Qatar during the most recent UN climate conference.  These Arab youth implored their respective governments to act immediately on climate change policies (see video link here).  Failure to act guarantees increased risks of future water shortages and food security.  For now, Qatar, like many Arab countries, reclaims water from the saline seas.  This process requires energy, and a lot of it.  They can do this because their vast petroleum reserves provide the needed energy to desalinate the water—for now.  What about the future?  Quoting a Touarg proverb from the Arab region, “The difference between paradise and desert is not water, but man.”

Ethiopia Climate Resilient Green Economy

In July 2011, I traveled to Ethiopia with my colleague Matt Codes to investigate water as a climate change issue.  The young boy pictured above was just one the many smiling, hopeful faces we encountered.  Ethiopia is often depicted as a sun-scorched desert with its people existing on the edge of starvation.  To the contrary, Ethiopia has plenty of water.  It serves as the “water tower” for much of Africa.  It has widely varied geography with lush plateaus, lofty mountains, pasturelands, and yes, desert.  The problem is that water is unevenly distributed.  Ethiopia is very susceptible to adverse effects of climate change.  In 2011, then Prime Minister Meles Zenawi (1955-2012) unveiled Ethiopia’s Climate Resilient Green Economy strategy aimed at creating jobs and reducing poverty through the development and green initiatives.  He stated, “We have the opportunity to demonstrate that in the 21st century a new form of green growth is possible, which can avoid the mistakes of the developed world and create a pathway to green growth.”  Ethiopia has received international praise for its forward-thinking strategy.  The likely beneficiaries will be its children.

We are reminded that the first Earth Day in 1970 launched the modern environmental movement that led to the formation of the EPA and enactment of the Clean Water, Clean Air, and Endangered Species Acts.  If civil society can put a face on climate change, surely we can pressure our legislators to enact legislation that, in like manner, will clean up our atmosphere in order to avoid a climate catastrophe.

Posted in climate change, COP 18, earth day, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

State of the Union on Climate Change: what’s the rush?

Posted on February 12, 2013 by Keith Peterman

In his 2013 State of the Union address, Pres. Obama affirmed his commitment to tackle the issue of climate change, “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.”  He further stated, “I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

Our nation is facing so many other pressing issues—an anemic economy, immigration reform, gun violence, and more—so, what’s the big rush with climate change?  Climate change can wait…can’t it?

No!   It can’t wait!  And Obama gets it.

Failure to immediately tackle the economy, immigration, or gun violence will not spell cataclysmic doom for society.  However, failure to address climate change now, during Obama’s remaining term in office, could lead to an irreversible global catastrophe for the next generation and beyond.

In his address, Obama stated, “Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of the Space Race.” It is informative to step back to that period of time, a little over half a century ago, in order to fully understand the “rush” to action on climate change.

On October 4, 1957, the former Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the world’s first satellite, into space with profound psychological impact.  The late 1950’s was the height of the “Cold War” and the nuclear arms race.  That tiny, silver sphere—Sputnik—opened space as the new battleground of the cold war.

At the time Sputnik was launched, a young post-doctoral student named Dave Keeling started collecting high accuracy measurements of the greenhouse gas CO2 in our atmosphere.  Keeling’s project and Sputnik were both linked to the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year (IGY).  The data Keeling began collecting in 1958 during IGY now endures as the longest continuous instrumental record of atmospheric data ever collected.  This record shows that the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere has increased from 313 ppm in 1958 to 396 ppm today. That’s an increase of more than 25% since the launch of Sputnik.

The U.S. was so stunned by Sputnik and subsequent Soviet success in space that President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to “commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him back safely to the earth.”  We accomplished that goal on July 20, 1969 when Neil Armstrong stepped from the landing module Eagle onto the Moon’s surface, “that’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”.

Of lesser note in 1969, Dave Keeling spoke to the American Philosophical Society about the CO2 data he was collecting.  Keeling cautioned his tiny audience, “if the rise in CO2 continues, it is likely to inhibit the escape of heat radiating upward from the Earth’s surface and bring about a warmer climate – the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’.”

Although scientists recognized that global CO2 concentration was rising, it stood at only 324 ppm in 1969.  A warmer world was “likely”, but there was not a sense of urgency.  We wouldn’t approach a crisis for perhaps a century or more.  In turn, policy makers left future generations deal with it.

Scientists continued to document rising greenhouse gas concentrations throughout the 1970’s and 80’s as well as the increasing temperature of our planet.  Concern grew and became so great that 150 nations signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro.  The ultimate aim of the Convention is “preventing dangerous human interference with the climate system.”

Although President George H. W. Bush signed the 1992 UNFCCC treaty, five presidential terms later, we are no closer to curbing our GHG emissions.  Most of the college students I teach today were not even born at the time Bush signed the pledge.

Obama understands that the window for delay is now gone. He has chosen “to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.”

Robust scientific evidence documents that we must address climate change now, during Obama’s remaining term in office.  Our planet is warming at a rate that is nearly proportional to the excess CO2 humans are dumping into our atmosphere.  We have now warmed approximately +0.8oC above the pre-industrial era.  An increase of +1.5oC projects significant adverse impacts; small island states disappear beneath rising seas, most of the world’s corals will die, glaciers retreat and more.  It gets much worse at higher temperatures: +2oC the Amazon turns into desert & the Greenland ice sheet melts; +3oC global warming may run out of control and efforts to mitigate may be in vain; +4oC we enter an extreme danger zone.

A recent report in Science states that the door to preventing a +1.5oC world by 2035 may have already closed based on economic models that estimate a maximum feasible rate of emissions reduction may not exceed approximately 5% per year.  The International Energy Agency (IEA) further warns that “without further action, by 2017 all CO2 emissions permitted in the 450 Scenario will be “locked-in” by existing power plants, factories, buildings, etc.”

The 450 Scenario sets out an energy pathway—assuming there is political will—to limit the average global rise to less than +2oC.  It is widely accepted that we must limit our global surface temperature increase to less than +2oC.  A recent report for the World Bank states that the consequences of a +4oC world would be “catastrophic”.  We are currently on a trajectory toward a +6oC world by 2035.

Simply stated, there is no time left.  All evidence supports Obama’s initiative, “for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change.”

Posted in climate change, politics, science | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Obama Inauguration through Lens of Climate Change

Posted on January 23, 2013 by Keith Peterman

Although much has already been written about the 2013 Inauguration of Pres. Obama, I would like to briefly view it through the narrowly focused lens of climate change.  I was among the sea of humanity who gathered in Washington on January 21 to witness the event.  My day started in the early morning, leaving my home in York, PA at 3:00 am.  By 7:30 am I was firmly planted in a VIP standing area with a good, though distant, view of the flag-bedecked inaugural platform.  Dawn was barely breaking.

Eventually, the sun rose over our nation’s Capitol Dome.  Although somewhat masked by gray clouds, the hazy, stellar object reminded me that our sun is the source of our planetary warmth.  Solar energy drives our climate system.  Photosynthesis converts carbon dioxide back into stored chemical energy.  Our fossil fuels are little more than vast stored reserves of solar energy from previous eras.

If it were not for the natural greenhouse effect in which atmospheric carbon dioxide traps solar energy, Earth would be a cold, lifeless sphere like all other planets in our solar system.  It is the enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from too much carbon dioxide being dumped into our atmosphere that is the cause for alarm.

In his 2013 inaugural address, Obama vowed to confront excess greenhouse gas emissions which are our planet’s most pressing environmental issue.  Indeed, Obama has consistently voiced his concern about climate change and stated the need for our nation to tackle the issue.  What struck me was the power and conviction of his 2013 inaugural statements.

“We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity.  We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”  As stated, we have a moral and ethical responsibility to provide a habitable world for our children, grandchildren, and all as yet unborn generations.  Climate change is a civilization challenging issue that mandates active U.S. engagement with our entire global community.  It requires a commitment to lower our own greenhouse gas emissions and to provide financial and technical resources to those most vulnerable and least resilient in adapting to our changing climate.

“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.”  The overwhelming consensus of climate scientists, prestigious scientific societies, and the refereed scientific literature confirm that our planet is warming and humans are the primary cause.  The past 12 months took us to the figurative woodshed for a series of severe-weather lashings.  2012 was the warmest on record—an unprecedented 1.00F warmer than the previous record warm year of 1998 and 3.20F above the 20th century average.  Hurricane Sandy brutally whipped our coastal communities with severe economic consequences.  Crops throughout much of the nation withered under a drought not seen since the dust bowl.

The contrasts between this and Obama’s previous inauguration are telling, both real and metaphorically.

Back at the inaugural event in 2009, an arctic front had spilled down over the eastern half of the U.S. spreading freezing temperatures as far south as Atlanta.  This year’s event was balmy by comparison.   The festive mood in 2009 was one of jubilation, fully recognizing the historic moment.  This year was more reserved, but clearly one of reverence for its shared connection with Martin Luther King Day and the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation.

In 2009, I encountered inaccessible trains crowded beyond capacity.  The city was not prepared for a crush of nearly two million visitors.  I walked four miles across the frozen Potomac River to our appointed point of entry in DC.  This year, I easily negotiated the well planned and managed transportation maze.

In 2009, I waited for hours in a glacial-pace line, slowed by limited and inefficient security portals, only to have the gates close as the ceremony began.  Along with thousands of other VIP ticket holders, I was locked out of the ceremony.    This year, entry was non-stressful.  Even though the number of VIP ticket holders and therefore the ticketed crowded remained the same as in 2009, we were efficiently funneled into one of multiple security alley ways and through a security portal.

In like manner, Obama’s action based Inaugural Address this year, one of resolve, contrasted starkly with his “winter of our hardship” speech in January 2009 when his words reflected the challenges of a nation in crisis, “Our nation is at war…  Our economy is badly weakened…  Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered.  Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many.”  Although he stated that, “each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet”, the term “climate change” did not appear in his speech.

Obama more clearly articulated his climate change vision in December 2009 when he traveled to the UN climate conference in Copenhagen for what turned out to be the largest gathering of world leaders ever outside the UN in NY.  He joined a chorus of other world leaders in stating, “climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people…  This is not fiction, it is science.  Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet.  This much we know…America bears our responsibility to address climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility… We are ready to get this done today.”  Armed with newly acquired authority under the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as well as consensus from across the aisle, he was ready to “get this done”.

However, a more polarized legislative body meant climate change legislation never got done.  Now, three years later, an experienced president, unencumbered with the need to seek reelection, appears prepared to as stated in his 2013 Inaugural Address, “preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God.”

Posted in climate change, climate disaster, ethics, extreme weather, politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

First Carbon-Neutral Coffee Takes Center Stage at UN Climate Conference

Posted on December 6, 2012 by Keith Peterman

If you are like me, you enjoy a morning cup of Joe to jump-start your day.  I’m a bit particular about my brew.  My beans come from the steep mountain slopes of the Tarrazú region in west-central Costa Rica. The altitude and climate in that region create perfect growing conditions for high quality, strictly hard-bean Arabica coffee.

Coffee is at the forefront of the sustainability movement, and my preferred coffee bean took center stage here at the UN climate conference yesterday afternoon.  The entire 14-member Costa Rican delegation popped into our media center for some photo ops.  To my surprise, they brought with them several large bags of beans from the Dota coffee cooperative in the Tarrazú region—that’s my bean!  How cool is that?  Costa Rican Minister of Environment René Castro-Salazar symbolically presented the beans to H.E. Fahad Bin Mohammed Al-Attiya, Chairman of the Organizing Sub-Committee of COP18.

Later in the day, Castro linked this symbolic gesture to the recently released World Bank Report Why a 4 °C Warmer World Must be Avoided.  Recognizing the risks of a climate catastrophe as outlined in the report, he stated, “We just delivered the first 5000 pounds of internationally certified carbon-neutral coffee in the world because we should preach by example… the top down is going too slow, we are starting bottom up.”  As well, Costa Rica was previously the first nation to declare its intent to become carbon neutral by 2021.

Getting back to our coffee-time in the media room, Costa Rican Minister of Agriculture Gloria Abraham discussed the greenhouse gas metrics telling me, “The cooperative earned its PAS2060 certification from the British Standards Institute.”  No green-washing (play on the term “white-washing”) with this coffee.  The rigorous BSI standards assure the cooperative’s carbon-neutral distinction.  The ministers were pleased to hear that I drink their Dota coffee and we shared stories as we sipped.  I’ve visited Costa Rica many times for my own research and writing and I take a student group each year to study issues of climate change and sustainability, including adverse impacts of climate change on coffee.  The relaxed, low-key atmosphere milling around the coffee machine and sharing cups of aromatic carbon-neutral brew was in stark contrast to the far more serious formal high level event two-hours later.  At that event, Castro joined with COP 18 President Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Attiyah, World Bank President for Sustainable Development Rachel Kyte, and other dignitaries from Gabon, Grenada, Netherlands, Bahrain, Yemen, and Tunisia to release the World Bank Report “Adaptation to a Changing Climate in the Arab Countries”. 

 

One of the first comprehensive assessments of climate change effects in the Arab world, this Report warned that temperatures are increasing 50% faster than the global average and that immediate action is needed to avoid the risk of increased water shortages and food security.  The collective “un-“ words spoken by the dignitaries were unsettling; “unthinkable” (for small island states), “unlivable” (>52oC Arab world), “uncultivable” (food security), “unprecedented” (challenges to every facet of life)…”but not unstoppable”.

With reference to the warnings in both World Bank Reports, Ms. Kyte stated, “it would be unspeakable to make decisions today that develop inequity into future generations.”  She opened and closed the high level event with a Touarg proverb, “The difference between paradise and dessert is not water, but man.”

Posted in climate change, climate disaster, COP 18 | Leave a comment

UN Climate Conference: Feeling the frustration of youth

Posted on December 4, 2012 by Keith Peterman

As a member of the press attending briefings, meetings, and events throughout the day, it’s hard not to feel the frustration of youth here in Doha at the UN climate conference.  As adults selfishly barter the future of the planet behind closed doors, youth struggle with little success for their voice to be heard. 

A correspondent posed this concern to UN Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres and COP 18 President His Excellency Mr. Abdullah Bin Hamad Al-Attiyah at a press briefing yesterday.

Ms. Figueres responded with empathy; “This process welcomes the impatience of youth.  This is about your life.  We welcome the healthy impatience of youth.  At the same time, we must understand that this process will require a commitment for change of the financial structure of the world.  We [negotiators and policy makers] are very far behind what the science tells us we should be doing.”

By contrast, HE Al-Attiyah was surprisingly paternalistic and patronizing as he reflected on the days of his youth, “Youth want everything to move immediately…when we become older, we understand that this is a cumulative process…we need patience from the youth.”  These unscripted remarks validate the deep frustration felt by the youth here in Doha.

A coalition of youth NGO’s called “YOUNGO” overtly expressed their frustration in a recent demonstration within the conference center.  The group of 18 to 25 year olds held up signage inscribed “THANKS” to express their views to the negotiators sequestered behind closed doors.  Then, out poped another large sign screaming “NO”! 

The sarcastic “NO THANKS” is not new to the COP 18 youth.  In a post-COP 17 op-ed, York College student Patrick Lestrange lamented, “For the younger generation, we will face this problem for the rest of our lives. Yet our voices are not part of the discussions. All we can do is scream to be heard.  In 2050, I will be 60 years old. The negotiators deciding policies regarding climate change and the fate of the world will likely be gone.”

Youth have been pleading for years.  In 2009 at COP 15 in Copenhagen (dubbed “Hopenhagen” for the climate talks), I encountered young Gabrilla Heller from Hungary sporting her blue & gold girl-scout bandana.  The logo on her orange tee-shirt shouted the message of her generation, “How Old Will You Be In 2050?”  Youth continue to wait in frustration.   

Here in Doha, Moravian College student Marla Bianca said, “The youth have been fighting to find our voice at these conferences and to be heard.  We feel like we have a lot to contribute, but the negotiators are not listening.”  She and other youth brought this up during a sit-down session they had with Ms. Figueres on the first day of the COP 18 conference.  “We asked Christiana how the youth can have more of a voice and be heard by negotiators.  [Ms. Figueres] said that she gets this question every year and that it’s the hardest to answer because of the rules and regulations in the legislation of the United Nation.  Instead of being able to give us a direct answer, she encouraged the youth to take action and fight for the voice we deserve.”

Maria Aroca, a student from Spain representing an international medical students’ association, states the message about adverse health impacts associated with climate change have been heard and are appearing in outcome documents.  “But, health issues are not being acted upon by negotiators.”

Saurav Dhakal, a young adult from Nepal attending his first COP says, “There must be give-and-take.  Everyone must respect the issues.”  When asked if negotiators are acting, he responds, “Not really.  They are becoming more bureaucratic.  They accept reality as a story only, not as reality.”

I just returned from a hallway youth “I Am Part of the Solution.  Are You?” demonstration.  Youth from around the globe—Ecuador, Bangladesh, Netherlands, Taiwan, Japan, Puerto Rico, the UK, and others—stepped up on a podium one-by-one declaring why they were part of the solution.  

The high-level portion of the COP begins today.  Youth—half the worlds’ population—must wait outside the negotiating rooms to see what future reality awaits them.

Posted in climate change, COP 18, COP17, politics, science, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How to Make a Difference; Saving the Planet by Increasing Undergraduate Climate Science Literacy

Posted on December 2, 2012 by Gregory Foy

The Science is undeniable; humans are interfering with the Earth’s climate.  The question now is – When will we act? How will we act? and Who will act?  The world needs to act NOW, and the American Chemical Society (ACS), the largest scientific organization in the world is acting.  There is a recognition by our Society that education is the place to start acting, through education of the membership, and projects targeting youth.  To increase awareness among younger chemists, the ACS has sponsored a project through the ACS Committee on Environmental Improvement that is in its third year of sending Chemistry students to the annual UN climate conference. 

The ACS became involved in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties (COP) as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) at COP 13 in Bali.  However, the ACS could not clearly identify a way to engage in the COPs.  In 2010 at COP 16 the engagement began in earnest through an outreach project “Students Engaging Students and Other Civil Society” with two York College of Pennsylvania (YCP) students attending.  These students blogged for C&EN (Chemical and Engineering News), created a web site, posted videos, communicated through facebook, and gave numerous presentations.  The following year, a team of five students attended COP 17, and again spread their messages through multiple social media channels and more.  Their project year culminated with the first ever undergraduate panel discussion at the 2012 Spring ACS National Meeting in San Diego.  These students were able to engage their colleagues in direct discussions with more than fifty audience members. 

Entering the third year of the project, four college chemistry students will officially represent ACS at the 18th Conference of Parties (COP 18) in Doha, Qatar from November 26-December 7, 2012.  ACS student delegates Marla Bianca (Moravian College), Parker McCrary (University of Alabama), Nikki DeLuca (York College of Pennsylvania), and John Siller (York College of Pennsylvania) will once again employ social networking technologies—Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Blogs, etc.—to engage college and university students in the international climate change discourse in their efforts to increase climate literacy.  Climate change is a global issue that demands a global response.  What are negotiators and policymakers doing to address civilization most challenging global environmental issue?  You can now log on to a front-row seat from the epicenter of international climate change negotiations.  All interested world citizens are encouraged to follow the conversation by visiting the ACS Students on Climate Change web site at http://www.studentsonclimatechange.com/.  Readers may express their own views by posting comments or submitting “guest blogs” to be posted on the web site.

The ultimate aim of the UNFCCC is “preventing dangerous human interference with the climate system” and the annual COP is the “supreme body” of the Convention with the “highest decision-making authority”.  The ACS is acting on the International stage, and through other educational tools like President Bassam Shakashiri’s initiative “The Climate Science Toolkit”

Last year, a Special Report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that, “climate change has led to changes in climate extremes such as heat waves, record high temperatures and, in many regions, heavy precipitation in the past half century.”  Unparalleled weather extremes in the U.S. recently—droughts, storms, and more—have served as a poster endorsement of expected future events.

The authors of this blog, Greg Foy and Keith Peterman are acting by leading this project and blogging here and on the Huffington Post.

The largest scientific organization in the world, the ACS, is acting, college students and professors are acting.

When will YOU act?

How will YOU act?

If not YOU, WHO will act? 

York College chemistry faculty members Greg Foy and Keith Peterman are serving as leaders of this project.  For more information, contact Peterman (peterman@ycp.edu or 717-815-1334) or Foy (gfoy@ycp.edu or 717-815-1523).

Posted in climate change, COP 18, international relations, sustainability | Leave a comment

UN Climate Conference in Qatar: An historical perspective

Posted on November 26, 2012 by Keith Peterman

Our collective weather appears to be at a turning point, fueled by changing climatic conditions—what some scientists are now calling climate disruption.  In recent years, many of us either have personally suffered at the hands of unprecedented extreme weather events or know someone who has.  We’ve borne witness to shocking images: record droughts leaving land and crops parched and lifeless, floods sweeping houses off their foundations, wildfires consuming vast tracts of forests, hurricanes ravaging shorelines, the list goes on.

Greg Foy, three students representing the American Chemical Society, and I will be heading to the COP 18 UN climate conference in Doha, Qatar this weekend.  We will be attending week-two of the conference.  We felt that it would be informative to give you—our readers—a brief historical perspective of this annual conference.  

Seventeen previous United Nations Conferences of Parties (COPs) have strived to become international climate mitigation enforcers.  These are annual gatherings of policymakers from around the globe seeking to protect people, property, and our planet.  Each COP has attempted to acquire international, legally binding authority to police our planet, limit greenhouse gas emissions, and verify compliance of those emissions. They have made progress, but policymakers at each COP have failed to forge an international climate change agreement that promises a sustainable planet for our children and future generations. 

 More than 190 nations have gathered for COP 18—to be held in Doha, Qatar from November 26 – December 7—in an effort to forge global consensus on multiple climate change issues.  This will be the 18th Conference of Parties (COP 18) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  To understand the challenges of COP 18 and the imperative for a positive outcome, it may be helpful to reflect on a brief history of the UNFCCC, a few notable COPs, and their corresponding White House administrations.

 The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was created at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, with the ultimate aim of “preventing dangerous human interference with the climate system.”  The Convention was signed by more than 150 nations, including the U.S.  The annual COP, held each year, serves as the “supreme body” of the Convention with the “highest decision-making authority”.

 In 1988, presidential candidate George H. W. Bush stumped, “Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the ‘greenhouse gas effect’ are forgetting the ‘White House effect’.  As President, I intend to do something about it.”  Although Bush did sign the 1992 UNFCCC treaty, the “White House effect” did little to limit emissions during his presidency.  Sadly, there has been no meaningful “White House effect” since then.  The political will to address climate change has been trumped by powerful voices of opposition, including effective climate-skeptic disinformation campaigns.

 A 20-year follow-up to the Earth Summit (Rio+20), held in Rio this past summer, again focused on sustainable development with the aim of reconciling environmental and economic goals of our global community.  Here we are two decades & giga-tons of emissions later, and our planet is experiencing unprecedented warming.  We are already experiencing the significant human and economic costs of adverse, extreme weather.

The December 1997 COP 3, held in Kyoto, Japan was the most prominent Conference of Parties.  The UNFCCC treaty previously signed by Bush had set no mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual nations, and it contained no enforcement provisions; therefore, it was not a legally binding document.  However, treaty provisions did call for subsequent updates that would set mandatory limits. 

More than 10,000 participants from 161 countries attended COP 3 with the goal of finally establishing mandatory, legally binding targets that would reduce greenhouse gas concentrations.  The outcome was “The Kyoto Protocol,” which set binding greenhouse gas emissions limits on 37 industrialized countries and the European Union.  These nations were to reduce emissions by an average of five percent against 1990 levels.  Following a complex ratification process, the Kyoto Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005.  The United States symbolically signed the Kyoto Protocol, but we stand alone as the only industrialized nation that never officially ratified it. 

Leading up to COP 3 in Kyoto, U.S. opposition to a potential binding agreement was bipartisan.  In July 1997, the Senate unanimously passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution that “the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to…[the UNFCCC] of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Specifically, the Senate would not support mandatory cuts for developed countries unless they included commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for developing countries—most notably China and India. 

During their 1992 campaign, President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore (1993-2001) had both pledged to outshine their predecessors on environmental issues. Even with the support of Gore’s strong environmental credentials, however, the Clinton administration was no more successful than the first Bush administration at achieving meaningful, mandatory climate change legislation.

Faced with ardent opponents in the legislature and the business community, Clinton was unwilling to spend his political capital on an issue that would not become acute during his term.  Embroiled in the Monica Lewinski scandal, with the fight for his political life looming, and confronting an antagonistic legislature, Clinton lacked the political means to push forth meaningful climate change legislation, let alone ratifying the controversial Kyoto Protocol.  He simply kicked the can further down the road, where it could be addressed by a future administration.  No “White House effect” here.

During his eight years in office, George W. Bush (2001-2009) displayed a dearth of global cooperation on climate change.  Shortly after taking office, he announced in March 2001 that he would not submit the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification.  In a letter to the Senate, he called the Kyoto Protocol “fatally flawed” citing the following primary reasons: it exempts China and India from compliance, it would cause serious harm to the US economy, and he believed the state of scientific knowledge on climate change was incomplete.  The second Bush administration chose a “go-it-alone” approach to the issue of climate change.

In spite of limited U.S. engagement, the international community pressed forward.  The December 2007 COP 13 was held in Bali—a small, Southeast Asian island surrounded by coral reefs just south of the equator.  The purpose of COP 13 was to give direction for the negotiating process leading up to a post-Kyoto Protocol, which was due to expire in 2012.  The resulting Bali Roadmap led negotiators through the 2008 COP14 in Poznan, Poland, en route to COP15 in Copenhagen, Denmark.  Of special note, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), along with Al Gore, was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”  IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, who was deeply involved in the Bali negotiations, had to interrupt his activities to fly to Oslo, Norway—right in the middle of the Bali Conference—to accept the Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC.

Copenhagen was a fitting destination for what could have been an historic international climate conference—one that held the potential to reshape global greenhouse gas emission targets and concomitant control of rising global temperatures for decades to come.  Copenhagen fashions itself as an eco-metropolis; it is rated as the greenest major city in Europe and aims to become the world’s first carbon-neutral capital city by 2025.  The city had even been dubbed “Hopenhagen,” underscoring the fervent hope that the conference would build a better future for our planet and a more sustainable way of life.

Hopes soared when President Obama announced that he would personally attend the final day of the conference, a strong indication that the administration expected delegates to sign a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen.  He arrived with significant political capital, including his own Nobel Peace Prize, awarded just the day before.

Hopenhagen saw the largest gathering of world leaders ever outside the UN in New York.  Their collective voices echoed a unified theme: we are all here to agree on a plan to save our planet from a looming environmental crisis that—if not addressed now—will set in motion a cascading  and catastrophic series of events.  Rising sea levels will erase small-island nations and inundate coastlines, creating millions of environmental refugees.  The loss of glaciers will threaten fresh drinking water supplies for half of the world’s population.  Desertification, resource competition, and species extinction and redistribution will spark climate wars.  The list goes on.  In speech after speech, these world leaders all agreed that the social consequences of inaction were enormous.

In addition to a gaggle of U.S. legislators and emissaries who preceded Obama on the Hopenhagen stage, the President also enjoyed significant domestic support.  This included a nonpartisan “Climate Framework,” drafted by Senators Kerry (D-MA), Lieberman (I-CT), and Graham (R-SC), as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent declaration that “greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.”  This gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Unfortunately, COP 15 in Hopenhagen did not live up to its name.  International haggling over targets (the emission-reduction goals set for each nation), money (how much financial assistance, and from whom, should be provided to developing nations), and transparency (how would emissions be verified) was intense and intractable.  What emerged was a weak and widely varied list of promises under the non-binding Copenhagen Accord.  In fact, the UNFCCC parties did not formally adopt the accord—ultimately, they could only agree to “take note” of the document.  To date, we have no binding international agreement.  COP 15 also redefined the geopolitical landscape, with the emergence of China and India as climate-negotiation superpowers. 

The path from COP 15 in Copenhagen has taken us through the 2010 COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico and the 2011 COP17 in Durban, South Africa.  The COP 16 Cancun Agreements achieved modest outcomes in terms of funding for developing nations and technology transfer, and member nations confirmed the need for deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in order to hold our global average temperature increase to less than 2oC above pre-industrial levels.  A marathon negotiating schedule at COP 17 resulted in The Durban Platform.  Here, parties agreed to create a legally binding global treaty by 2015, with an effective date of 2020.  In addition to the developed nations, China and India would be bound by this treaty. 

It’s been a long road—20 years and 17 COPS—from the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio to COP 18 in Doha.  Along the way, member nations have voiced, in strong terms, our need to curb greenhouse gas emissions.  The science has become increasingly robust.  We must limit our greenhouse gas emissions for future sustainability. 

We have not slowed, let alone reversed the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.  President Obama reaffirmed our moral obligation to future generations in his recent election night address, “We want our children to live in an America that isn’t … threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.”  The time to begin rolling back the specter of a warming planet is now.

Posted in climate change, climate disaster, COP 18, international relations, politics, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Letter to President Barack Obama

Posted on November 9, 2012 by Keith Peterman

Our President has a new term four-year term to acheive his stated goals, one of which is addressing climate change.  I FAX’ed the following letter to President Obama today.  (Links are added for readers of this blog) 

Dear Mr. President:

Congratulations on your election victory!  As you noted in your election night address, we as a nation face a number of challenges—“reducing our deficit, reforming our tax code, fixing our immigration system, freeing ourselves from foreign oil.”  You also affirmed our moral obligation to future generations—“We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt; that isn’t weakened by inequality; that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.” 

Our warming planet creates a civilization challenging issue; one which requires U.S. leadership and a global solution.     

I ask you to pick up the climate change torch-of-action you carried to Copenhagen during the first year of your presidency in December 2009 for the 15th Conference of Parties (COP 15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  For the sake of your children Sasha & Malia, my grandchildren Ally, Sam, Zady, Colton, Finley, Olivia, & Aubrey, and all the children of the world, I ask that you reignite your climate change leadership role and carry your torch to the December 2012 high-level segment of the COP 18 UN climate conference in Doha, Qatar. 

We need to reengage the climate change discourse.  All nations are looking for the United States to take a leadership role if we expect to negotiate a meaningful global climate change treaty.

You stated in your election night speech that you look “forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together.”  I believe you, I believe in you, and I believe that a majority of our legislators are now willing to put the good of our country and the world ahead of their own personal ideologies. 

In 2009, you drew support from across the aisle when you traveled to Copenhagen to forge an international climate change agreement.  As you know, Copenhagen had been dubbed “Hopenhagen” in the fervent hope that the COP 15 UN climate conference would produce a global agreement—one which would promise a better future for our planet and a more sustainable way of life.  Senators Kerry (a democrat), Lieberman (an independent), and Graham (a republican) supported you with a nonpartisan climate framework. 

I was in “Hopenhagen’s” Bella Center in December 2009.  I was filled with pride as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, congressional legislators Kerry, Waxman, Markey, and others preceded you with press briefings and speeches.  Like everyone else who strolled the halls trying to glean any bits of information about the closed-door negotiations among you and other Heads-of-State or just sat around drinking coffee and waiting, we were will filled with hope.

In spite of all your efforts, the outcome of COP 15 was a weak, non-binding “Copenhagen Accord”.  And, the UNFCCC parties did not formally adopt it.  The parties ultimately could only agree to “take note” of the Copenhagen Accord.  To date, we do not have a binding international agreement.  The torch you carried to Copenhagen has dimmed to a mere flickering pilot-light.

U.S. Presidents have long recognized the need to address climate change.  Reflecting back to 1988, presidential candidate George H. W. Bush stumped, “Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the ‘greenhouse gas effect’ are forgetting the ‘White House effect’.  As President, I intend to do something about it.”  However, the “White House effect” had little impact on limiting emissions during his presidency.  And, there has been no meaningful “White House effect” in limiting the “greenhouse gas effect” since then.    

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was created at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro.  The ultimate aim of the UNFCCC is “preventing dangerous human interference with the climate system”.  It was signed by more than 150 nations including the U.S.

Here we are two decades later buried giga-tons deeper in excess greenhouse emissions.  As a consequence, our planet is experiencing unprecedented warming.  We are already seeing the adverse extreme-weather outcomes with significant human and economic costs.

You assumed the full weight of the presidency during a particularly harrowing time.  In your January 20, 2009 Inauguration Day speech, you enumerated the many challenges we faced.  From the podium on the Capitol steps on that frigid day under clear blue skies, you stated, “[our challenges] will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America – they will be met.”  Among those challenges you promised to “roll back the specter of a warming planet.”

The time to roll back the specter of a warming planet is now.  Your science advisors will tell you that we must peak growth of our global greenhouse gas emissions during the term of your presidency.  It is no longer a distant concern.  We must begin our reduction in emissions by 2015 if we have any hope to hold the temperature increase of our planet to +2 degrees C over the pre-industrial average.  This is a planetary emergency.  Failing to act is failing our children.    

Climate change is the most pressing economic, ecological, moral issue of our time.  We have borrowed this planet from our children.  Our planet is facing ecological foreclosure.  It is now time to pay our mortgage in the form of reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Reignite the torch you carried to “Hopenhagen”.  Carry our American fire, warmth, and light to Doha.  Let us turn the “No we couldn’t” three-year period since COP 15 in Copenhagen into a one-month “Yes we can!” period leading up to COP 18.  With your leadership, we can forge a binding global climate change agreement. 

Thank you Mr. President.  I look forward to seeing you in Doha next month.

Posted in climate change, climate disaster, COP 18, economics, extreme weather, international relations, politics | 1 Comment

Climate Vampire: Frankenstorm foreboding

Posted on October 30, 2012 by Keith Peterman

Frankenstorm Sandy was headed up the coast.  Like all of you, we prepared—stocking up on water, batteries, non-perishable foods, extra ice…and more.  York County preparation was evident by the empty shelves in grocery stores and sold-out generators.  As it turns out, my wife Trish and I didn’t lose electrical power and it doesn’t look like I’ll need to power-up my chain saw. 

Yes, the storm was monstrous—once-in-a-generation storm surges, downed trees, power outages, and flooding over a large swath of the Middle Atlantic region.        

Would we have been able to mobilize the masses if nobody even reported the pending disaster?  Would we have had access to the emergency planning and resources if policymakers had simply ignored the pending disaster and not declared a state of emergency in multiple states?    

“Frankenstorm” put a mythological face on this unprecedented extreme weather event.  And yes, it motivated me as well.  It was more than a bit frightening.  The Frankenstorm was a visible single indicator that extreme weather events can occur.  Climate models predict that extreme weather events will become more numerous with our changing climate.  We in the U.S. have seen numerous examples of extreme weather events just in the last year—think back to last October’s unprecedented snowfall (I needed the chain saw for that event), our mild winter, summer drought across much of the country, and now the Frankenstorm. 

The impending consequences of our fossil-fuel-addicted society may need a visible monster-face as well.  I propose the “Climate Vampire”!  Vampires exist by sucking the essence out of living creatures.  We in the U.S. have largely ignored the cries of global society and of our youth, “Please don’t suck the life out of Mother Earth!” 

Unfortunately, the immediate impact of the fossil-fuel-sucking Climate Vampire is less visible than a Frankenstorm.  In spite of the cumulative scientific literature, sophisticated computer models, and numerous summary reports, our policy makers, and we as a society, continue to ignore the Climate Vampire.    

Vampires have captured the imagination of current-day society in films and novels.  In many cases, the villain is suave and charismatic.  However, the Climate Vampire is not to be swooned over.  It is time for us to recognize this leech for what it is.  It is in our own self-interest to confront the Climate Vampire.  Just as we prepared for the Frankenstorm, we can mobilize society and our policymakers to address climate change.  It is time to confront the Climate Vampire with the most dreaded of all weapons—a Vampire Tax, otherwise known as a Carbon Tax.

Our national elections are next Tuesday.  Our candidates have largely ignored any mention of “climate change”.  For the first time since 1988, “climate change” was not brought up in a single one of the presidential debates.  In fact, it was MTV that broke the political climate silence: MTV Breaks Obama’s Climate Silence.  Sway Williams sat down for an October 26 interview with President Obama.  In response to Williams’s tough question about global warming, President Obama stated, “I am surprised it didn’t come up in one of the debates.”

In Governor Romney’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, climate change was nothing more than a laugh-line when he quipped, “President Obama has promised to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet.  My promise is to help you and your family.”  And, the Republican Party platform mentions “climate change” only once while downplaying its severity.  For many, the term “climate change” is politically toxic.

By contrast, the Democratic Party platform addresses “climate change” 18 times, affirming the science while noting that, “Our opponents have moved so far to the right as to doubt the science of climate change.”  Nevertheless, the democratic climate change discourse has been nearly as silent as the republican.

The Climate Vampire must be confronted.  The term “climate change” can no longer be politically toxic.  If we inform the masses, we can mobilize the masses—much as we did with the Frankenstorm. Our policy makers must accept that smart energy policy is effective economic policy and climate change policy.  We—civil society—must demand climate change literacy of our elected officials, with smart climate change legislation as an outcome.  Climate change is a planetary state of emergency.  We need climate legislation.  The essence of life on our planet depends on it.

Posted in climate change, economics, extreme weather, politics, science | 1 Comment