Letter to Dan Lungren

Dear Debra:

Per your instructions, I will outline my purpose for meeting with Congressman Lungren.First of all, I had the good fortune of bumping into Congressman Lungren in front of the Bel Air Market a couple of weeks ago. We talked a little bit about clean energy but under those circumstances, it was difficult to have a meaningful discussion. I would like to meet with Congressman Lungren to discuss 2 issues of critical importance: the impacts of climate change, our reliance on fossil fuels and what should be done about it.I do
not know whether or not Congressman Lungren accepts the theory that the climate is changing and humans are the primary cause of these changes. There is an accumulating body of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was created by the World Meteorological Organization has stated unequivocally in its most recent assessment that Human activities ... "are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." The statements by the IPCC are supported by every major scientific organization in the U.S., including the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). All have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.In short, there is no longer any meaningful debate occurring among scientists about whether
climate change is happening and whether humans are the cause. That issue has been settled. A small group of skeptics remain who have offered other theories such as water vapor, natural variation, sunspots,etc. None of the competing theories have withstood scientific scrutiny.

Most of these other explanations tend to focus on one aspect of the climate change model or
extract limited pieces of data, also known as cherry-picking to bolster their arguments. If Congressman Lungren is interested in learning more about the scientific basis behind climate change theory, I urge him to contact Dr. James Hansen of the Nasa Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Dr. Hansen is the leading climatologist on global warming and has been researching this problem for over 20 years. I am sure he would be delighted to discuss the issue with Congressman Lungren. Dr. Hansen can be reached at (212) 678-5500.
The impacts of climate change are already evident on a global scale. Mountain glaciers are receding and the polar ice caps are melting. A massive ice sheet 100 square miles and 600 feet thick in size recently broke off of the coast of Greenland. 2010 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record. Coral reefs around the world are under stress due to the acidification of the ocean from increasing Co2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Unusually hot weather gripped Russia this year, drying out acres of farmland and raising wheat prices around the world.

There is no secret as to what is causing the increase in Co2 in the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution have released millions of tons of Co2 and much of the Co2 that was burned at the beginning of the 20th century is still in the air today. Dr. Hansen has identified a list of what he refers to as positive feed backs, which are observable consequences of Co2 increases that are responsible for accelerating the warming of the planet. According to Dr. Hansen, the earth’s climate is approaching a critical tipping point, where it may be too late to do anything. Once again, I urge Congressman Lungren to speak directly to Dr. Hansen so he can understand this problem in more depth.

To summarize:

1. The earth is getting warmer due to the increase in Co2 in the atmosphere.
2. Humans are responsible for the increase in Co2 due to the burning of fossil fuels.
3. The consequences of a warmer earth are now observable and accelerating.

The only question left is what to do about it. Clearly, we cannot extract and consume every last bit of fossil fuel left underground before we seek out alternatives. The consequences of burning additional fossil fuels, especially coal would be disastrous from both an economic and environmental perspective. I completely understand the concerns of many in Congress and perhaps Congressman Lungren who fear that any attempt to begin a transition to a clean energy economy would cost thousands of jobs. However, those costs must be weighed against the cost of not doing anything. On July 27, 2010 a panel of experts and officials from the Dept of Defense gathered to discuss the issue of clean energy. The Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus stated that it is a matter of national security to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels and his statements were echoed by other officials at the meeting including Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman at theDept of Energy. According to Deputy Secretary Poneman, the status quo is unsustainable. He goes on to say that, "The security and prosperity of the United States are directly tied to energy." A May, 2009 report from the Center for Naval Analysis called our national energy posture a serious and urgent threat to national security.

From everything that I have presented above, the only logical solution is to phase out fossil fuel use in this country and build an alternative clean energy infrastructure. The purpose of my meeting with Congressman Lungren is to give him a blueprint for accomplishing this goal. I promise not to take up too much of his time. I only ask that he hear me out on this.

Sincerely,
David Brotman