The Electoral College Map Five Days Out: Most Likely Trump Scenario is a Tie [Greg Laden's Blog]

The most likely way for Hillary Clinton to not win the presidency may be a tie between Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump. This is because, when one looks at the data a number of ways, and makes various adjustments, Clinton wins, often just barely, most of the time, except in what appears to be the worst case scenario. That scenario is Clinton losing most of what are called “Battleground States” — but for the most part, only those that are truly in contention, so it is quite possible — but retaining her “firewall” states, the states she really can not possibly lose. That puts Clinton 3 points ahead of the 270 required to win. But then, in this scenario, the most likely bluish state to switch to red, New Hampshire, goes for Trump. When that happens, the Electoral College Vote becomes 269-269, and the Electoral College becomes the Electoral College Prank.

What happens then? The House attempts to decide who will win. If that happens, each state gets one vote (or zero, if they can’t decide). Even if the Democrats win the house back from the Republicans this election, Republicans will theoretically decide the outcome, because Democrats are concentrated in the more popular states. On a state-by-state basis, most states are Republican.

That does not mean that the Republicans will vote for Trump automatically. They have to chose among the top three Electoral candidates (while the Senate, meanwhile, choses among the top TWO VP candidates). Who knows what will happen?

You might think this is unlikely. Until I did my analysis this morning, I thought it was possible, but unlikely. I now realize that the chances of an electoral tie are pretty darn good. (And by pretty darn good, I do mean probably less than one in ten, but that’s still pretty darn good for something that has only happened once before.)

Let’s look at all the numbers.

As you know I have a model. I mentioned weeks ago that near the end of the election season, my model would converge on the polls, because it is calibrated to the polls, but only uses the better and more recent polling data. Today, I decided to use the final adjusted polling estimate provided by FiveThirtyEight, because, a) they are good at adjusting and evaluating polling data, and b) there is now enough information to use polling data from pretty much any state. Still, there are some weak states, and there are other uncertainties, so feeding polling data into my model provides a semi-independent look across the states (it is quite possible for the polls to put a state in one column but my model to reverse that).

(Note: my model does not use polling data from Utah or Hawaii, because those states are too different from all the other states.)

So, here I’m going to use two separate sets of results, polls and my model. My model’s multiple R-squared value is really high (0.9838) and the polling results and model results are almost identical, but not quite. Given the strength of my model during the primaries, I trust it more than the polling data. Also, my model foretold many things that the polls finally caught up with, over the last several days, such as the weakness of North Carolina as a Clinton state. Well, not many things, but that one thing and maybe a few other things.

This is what the current polls say about Clinton’s chances in the race. If we take all the polls, and assign every state where Clinton beats Trump to Clinton, we get this:

As noted on the map (made using 270 to win’s excellent tool), Clinton, according to the best available analysis of current polls, would win by only 3 electoral votes. I’ve seen this coming for some time, and despite lots of arm waving saying it is not true, this is the most current, scientific, likely most accurate estimate.

The weakest state among the blue states on this map is New Hampshire. Look closely at New Hampshire on election night. If this map is shaping up as indicated here, AND New Hampshire looks weak, like maybe a Trump win, then we may well have the ultimate election night hangover on Wednesday. An electoral tie.

All the nay sayers out there (you know who you are) who have been telling me that my model must be wrong, because the polls show Clinton doing much better than my model, etc. etc., take heed now. That map, above, was from your precious polls. The following map is from my model, and it has a somewhat more secure win for Hillary Clinton.

I’m giving Florida and Nevada to Clinton, and New Hampshire is more secure. Frankly I think the most likely scenario is either one of the above two maps, or something in between, and that’s pretty much what is going to happen on election night. A trivial and incorrect way to calculate the likelihood of a tie is to look at all the different combinations (moving NH, NV, and FL around) but that is dumb, so I’m not going to do it. The extremes are probably less likely than the other combinations.

One prediction comes out of this that is rock solid. Tuesday night and Wednesday morning are going to be nail biters.

But wait, there’s more. Let’s have another look at the map, but applying the uncertainty in my model, in order to get one possible Election Night Bingo Card version. This map shows what states to watch, because they are the ones right in the middle between the two candidates.

By the way, recent information out of Florida seemed very very positive with respect to that state. But that is only one study, using a methodology and a set of data never before used, in a highly dynamic and changing system, in an untrustworthy state. Comment such as “Yeah, but Florida is in the bag for Clinton” will be frowned upon.

Here’s the same deal, but based on polls instead of my model:

Now, lets try some Magical Thinking. From Trump’s perspective, consider that the polls have been shifting by about one percentage point towards Trump or away from Clinton per week over the last few weeks. So, let’s move one percentage point from Clinton to Trump across all the polls and see what we get.

We get this, the Map from Hell, in which Trump does not win, but the rest of us lose anyway.

The second Magical Thinking scenario involves the idea that Clinton, and the Democrats have a real ground game going, and Trump does not. In this scenario, we move 2.5% from Trump to Clinton across the board to reflect this political reality. This may be the case, but it could also be, as noted, wishful magical thinking. And, it looks like this:

A lot of people have been talking about a Clinton Landslide, but this is the best you are likely to get. And, if you want to call this a landslide, feel free, but it isn’t and you would be wrong.

And, finally, your election night watch list. This map shows as blue every state that remained blue in all of the above analyses, and as red every state that remained red in all of the above analyses. The unknown state are, therefore, states that have either moved back and forth depending on how you look at the data, or what are within a short distance, either by polling or by my model, of those states. This is actually a pretty robust list. I don’t expect any state not brown on this map to move, and some of the brown ones won’t either (Colorado will be Clinton, Georgia will be Trump). But, if things are wonkier and wackier than our imaginations even now let us allow, who knows…

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eEkFpm

The most likely way for Hillary Clinton to not win the presidency may be a tie between Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump. This is because, when one looks at the data a number of ways, and makes various adjustments, Clinton wins, often just barely, most of the time, except in what appears to be the worst case scenario. That scenario is Clinton losing most of what are called “Battleground States” — but for the most part, only those that are truly in contention, so it is quite possible — but retaining her “firewall” states, the states she really can not possibly lose. That puts Clinton 3 points ahead of the 270 required to win. But then, in this scenario, the most likely bluish state to switch to red, New Hampshire, goes for Trump. When that happens, the Electoral College Vote becomes 269-269, and the Electoral College becomes the Electoral College Prank.

What happens then? The House attempts to decide who will win. If that happens, each state gets one vote (or zero, if they can’t decide). Even if the Democrats win the house back from the Republicans this election, Republicans will theoretically decide the outcome, because Democrats are concentrated in the more popular states. On a state-by-state basis, most states are Republican.

That does not mean that the Republicans will vote for Trump automatically. They have to chose among the top three Electoral candidates (while the Senate, meanwhile, choses among the top TWO VP candidates). Who knows what will happen?

You might think this is unlikely. Until I did my analysis this morning, I thought it was possible, but unlikely. I now realize that the chances of an electoral tie are pretty darn good. (And by pretty darn good, I do mean probably less than one in ten, but that’s still pretty darn good for something that has only happened once before.)

Let’s look at all the numbers.

As you know I have a model. I mentioned weeks ago that near the end of the election season, my model would converge on the polls, because it is calibrated to the polls, but only uses the better and more recent polling data. Today, I decided to use the final adjusted polling estimate provided by FiveThirtyEight, because, a) they are good at adjusting and evaluating polling data, and b) there is now enough information to use polling data from pretty much any state. Still, there are some weak states, and there are other uncertainties, so feeding polling data into my model provides a semi-independent look across the states (it is quite possible for the polls to put a state in one column but my model to reverse that).

(Note: my model does not use polling data from Utah or Hawaii, because those states are too different from all the other states.)

So, here I’m going to use two separate sets of results, polls and my model. My model’s multiple R-squared value is really high (0.9838) and the polling results and model results are almost identical, but not quite. Given the strength of my model during the primaries, I trust it more than the polling data. Also, my model foretold many things that the polls finally caught up with, over the last several days, such as the weakness of North Carolina as a Clinton state. Well, not many things, but that one thing and maybe a few other things.

This is what the current polls say about Clinton’s chances in the race. If we take all the polls, and assign every state where Clinton beats Trump to Clinton, we get this:

As noted on the map (made using 270 to win’s excellent tool), Clinton, according to the best available analysis of current polls, would win by only 3 electoral votes. I’ve seen this coming for some time, and despite lots of arm waving saying it is not true, this is the most current, scientific, likely most accurate estimate.

The weakest state among the blue states on this map is New Hampshire. Look closely at New Hampshire on election night. If this map is shaping up as indicated here, AND New Hampshire looks weak, like maybe a Trump win, then we may well have the ultimate election night hangover on Wednesday. An electoral tie.

All the nay sayers out there (you know who you are) who have been telling me that my model must be wrong, because the polls show Clinton doing much better than my model, etc. etc., take heed now. That map, above, was from your precious polls. The following map is from my model, and it has a somewhat more secure win for Hillary Clinton.

I’m giving Florida and Nevada to Clinton, and New Hampshire is more secure. Frankly I think the most likely scenario is either one of the above two maps, or something in between, and that’s pretty much what is going to happen on election night. A trivial and incorrect way to calculate the likelihood of a tie is to look at all the different combinations (moving NH, NV, and FL around) but that is dumb, so I’m not going to do it. The extremes are probably less likely than the other combinations.

One prediction comes out of this that is rock solid. Tuesday night and Wednesday morning are going to be nail biters.

But wait, there’s more. Let’s have another look at the map, but applying the uncertainty in my model, in order to get one possible Election Night Bingo Card version. This map shows what states to watch, because they are the ones right in the middle between the two candidates.

By the way, recent information out of Florida seemed very very positive with respect to that state. But that is only one study, using a methodology and a set of data never before used, in a highly dynamic and changing system, in an untrustworthy state. Comment such as “Yeah, but Florida is in the bag for Clinton” will be frowned upon.

Here’s the same deal, but based on polls instead of my model:

Now, lets try some Magical Thinking. From Trump’s perspective, consider that the polls have been shifting by about one percentage point towards Trump or away from Clinton per week over the last few weeks. So, let’s move one percentage point from Clinton to Trump across all the polls and see what we get.

We get this, the Map from Hell, in which Trump does not win, but the rest of us lose anyway.

The second Magical Thinking scenario involves the idea that Clinton, and the Democrats have a real ground game going, and Trump does not. In this scenario, we move 2.5% from Trump to Clinton across the board to reflect this political reality. This may be the case, but it could also be, as noted, wishful magical thinking. And, it looks like this:

A lot of people have been talking about a Clinton Landslide, but this is the best you are likely to get. And, if you want to call this a landslide, feel free, but it isn’t and you would be wrong.

And, finally, your election night watch list. This map shows as blue every state that remained blue in all of the above analyses, and as red every state that remained red in all of the above analyses. The unknown state are, therefore, states that have either moved back and forth depending on how you look at the data, or what are within a short distance, either by polling or by my model, of those states. This is actually a pretty robust list. I don’t expect any state not brown on this map to move, and some of the brown ones won’t either (Colorado will be Clinton, Georgia will be Trump). But, if things are wonkier and wackier than our imaginations even now let us allow, who knows…

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eEkFpm

Mapping Ecosystem Markets in EnviroAtlas: Providing Innovative Data and Tools to Inform Decision-Making

Ecosystem markets provide an innovative way to safeguard the goods and services we get from wetlands and other ecosystems.

Do you ever wonder how much clean water is worth? Or how much you would be willing to pay somebody not to pollute your favorite lake? Maybe you don’t think about these things, but businesses are emerging who do and that is exactly what ecosystem markets are all about. Ecosystem markets provide an innovative way to safeguard the goods and services we get from ecosystems. Through markets, interested parties can pay for landowners or managers to protect or restore ecosystems. For example, a sewage treatment plant might pay a third-party broker for nearby landowners to plant filter strips along waterbodies to reduce pollution or improve fish habitat. We are proud to announce that ecosystem markets maps are the latest addition to our EnviroAtlas web tool, thanks to a partnership between EPA, USDA’s Office of Environmental Markets, and Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace.

Ecosystem markets are appealing because they:

• protect the environment and provide a public good;
• offer additional revenue to America’s farmers and ranchers, and help protect agricultural
  land from conversion;
• increase the flexibility of conservation or restoration efforts by reducing/redistributing costs;
• increase opportunities for investment;
• can be used to meet regulatory compliance or promote voluntary conservation; and
• accelerate conservation activities.

Adding ecosystem markets to EnviroAtlas helps fills a crucial information gap.

The most well-established markets in the United States are for wetland and stream conservation, water quality, forest carbon sequestration, and imperiled species and habitats conservation. These markets have grown in number and importance over the past few decades, but until now there hasn’t been one place where people could access all available data on where markets have been implemented. By integrating these data into EnviroAtlas, markets can be viewed in the context of other EnviroAtlas maps. People can easily see where markets have been implemented, learn more about those markets, and hopefully identify where to develop additional markets.

EnviroAtlas started with a simple idea: to provide a web tool that gives anyone with internet access the opportunity to explore a wealth of maps about the places where we live, work, and play. Adding ecosystem markets to EnviroAtlas helps fills a crucial information gap. Our next step is to work with our partners at USDA and Forest Trends to publish examples of how markets data can be used in different decision contexts.

Check out the ecosystem markets data and 300+ other maps in our interactive mapping application.

About the Author: Anne Neale has been a research scientist in EPA’s Office of Research and Development since 1991. She has led the development of EnviroAtlas since shortly after its inception in 2007. She firmly believes that providing data to the public is important – data feeds information, information feeds knowledge, and knowledge feeds smart decisions!

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2fjdR2a

Ecosystem markets provide an innovative way to safeguard the goods and services we get from wetlands and other ecosystems.

Do you ever wonder how much clean water is worth? Or how much you would be willing to pay somebody not to pollute your favorite lake? Maybe you don’t think about these things, but businesses are emerging who do and that is exactly what ecosystem markets are all about. Ecosystem markets provide an innovative way to safeguard the goods and services we get from ecosystems. Through markets, interested parties can pay for landowners or managers to protect or restore ecosystems. For example, a sewage treatment plant might pay a third-party broker for nearby landowners to plant filter strips along waterbodies to reduce pollution or improve fish habitat. We are proud to announce that ecosystem markets maps are the latest addition to our EnviroAtlas web tool, thanks to a partnership between EPA, USDA’s Office of Environmental Markets, and Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace.

Ecosystem markets are appealing because they:

• protect the environment and provide a public good;
• offer additional revenue to America’s farmers and ranchers, and help protect agricultural
  land from conversion;
• increase the flexibility of conservation or restoration efforts by reducing/redistributing costs;
• increase opportunities for investment;
• can be used to meet regulatory compliance or promote voluntary conservation; and
• accelerate conservation activities.

Adding ecosystem markets to EnviroAtlas helps fills a crucial information gap.

The most well-established markets in the United States are for wetland and stream conservation, water quality, forest carbon sequestration, and imperiled species and habitats conservation. These markets have grown in number and importance over the past few decades, but until now there hasn’t been one place where people could access all available data on where markets have been implemented. By integrating these data into EnviroAtlas, markets can be viewed in the context of other EnviroAtlas maps. People can easily see where markets have been implemented, learn more about those markets, and hopefully identify where to develop additional markets.

EnviroAtlas started with a simple idea: to provide a web tool that gives anyone with internet access the opportunity to explore a wealth of maps about the places where we live, work, and play. Adding ecosystem markets to EnviroAtlas helps fills a crucial information gap. Our next step is to work with our partners at USDA and Forest Trends to publish examples of how markets data can be used in different decision contexts.

Check out the ecosystem markets data and 300+ other maps in our interactive mapping application.

About the Author: Anne Neale has been a research scientist in EPA’s Office of Research and Development since 1991. She has led the development of EnviroAtlas since shortly after its inception in 2007. She firmly believes that providing data to the public is important – data feeds information, information feeds knowledge, and knowledge feeds smart decisions!

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2fjdR2a

New Major US Water Policy Recommendations: “Water Strategies for the Next Administration” [Significant Figures by Peter Gleick]

My new Science Magazine article “Water Strategies for the Next Administration” has just been released (embargo lifts 11am Pacific, November 3^rd; the print version will appear in the November 4^th issue of Science). It identifies six major water-related challenges facing the United States and offers explicit recommendations for strategies the next Administration and Congress should pursue, domestically and internationally. The article begins:

“Issues around fresh water are not particularly high on the U.S. political agenda. They should be. Water problems directly threaten food production, fisheries, energy generation, foreign policy, public health, and international security. Access to safe, sufficient, and affordable water is vital to well-being and to the economy. Yet U.S. water systems, once the envy of the world, are falling into disrepair and new threats loom on the horizon.”

The six key challenges addressed are:

1. Inconsistent, overlapping, and inefficient Federal responsibilities for fresh water.
2. Incomplete basic water science and data.
3. Obsolete and decaying critical water infrastructure.
4. Growing links between water conflicts and threats to US national security.
5. The failure to provide safe, affordable water to all Americans.
6. The worsening threat of climate change for US water resources.

The paper also offers recommendations in each of these areas and suggests that water policy offers an opportunity for bipartisan agreement. National water issues have been sadly neglected for far too long. The new Administration has many opportunities to build a 21^st century national water system with broad public support. During the 2016 campaign, both presidential candidates have indicated their backing for clean water and concern over recent water-quality problems in cities like Flint, Michigan.

Among the recommendations I make in the Science Policy Forum piece are a call for a bipartisan water commission to make specific policy suggestions to Congress and the White House, an expansion of national efforts to collect, manage and share water data, modernization of federal water-quality laws, the testing for lead and other contaminants in every school in the country and remediation of any problems, new incentives for improved urban and agricultural water use technologies, an expansion of diplomatic efforts to reduce water conflicts, a boost in resources available for domestic and international programs to provide safe water and sanitation for all, and the integration of climate science into water management and planning at federal agencies and facilities.

The paper closes:

“We have neglected the nation’s fresh water far too long. The next Administration and Congress have the opportunity and responsibility to ensure federal agencies, money, and regulations work to protect our waters, citizens, communities, and national interests.”

[The author, Dr. Peter Gleick, is co-founder and president emeritus of the Pacific Institute and currently serves as chief scientist. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and a MacArthur Fellow.]

Copies of the embargoed Science paper are distributed only by the AAAS Office of Public Programs, to working journalists. Reporters should contact +1-202-326-6440 or scipak@aaas.org. Others seeking copies of the paper may order them from www.sciencemag.org.

 

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2fj9oMI

My new Science Magazine article “Water Strategies for the Next Administration” has just been released (embargo lifts 11am Pacific, November 3^rd; the print version will appear in the November 4^th issue of Science). It identifies six major water-related challenges facing the United States and offers explicit recommendations for strategies the next Administration and Congress should pursue, domestically and internationally. The article begins:

“Issues around fresh water are not particularly high on the U.S. political agenda. They should be. Water problems directly threaten food production, fisheries, energy generation, foreign policy, public health, and international security. Access to safe, sufficient, and affordable water is vital to well-being and to the economy. Yet U.S. water systems, once the envy of the world, are falling into disrepair and new threats loom on the horizon.”

The six key challenges addressed are:

1. Inconsistent, overlapping, and inefficient Federal responsibilities for fresh water.
2. Incomplete basic water science and data.
3. Obsolete and decaying critical water infrastructure.
4. Growing links between water conflicts and threats to US national security.
5. The failure to provide safe, affordable water to all Americans.
6. The worsening threat of climate change for US water resources.

The paper also offers recommendations in each of these areas and suggests that water policy offers an opportunity for bipartisan agreement. National water issues have been sadly neglected for far too long. The new Administration has many opportunities to build a 21^st century national water system with broad public support. During the 2016 campaign, both presidential candidates have indicated their backing for clean water and concern over recent water-quality problems in cities like Flint, Michigan.

Among the recommendations I make in the Science Policy Forum piece are a call for a bipartisan water commission to make specific policy suggestions to Congress and the White House, an expansion of national efforts to collect, manage and share water data, modernization of federal water-quality laws, the testing for lead and other contaminants in every school in the country and remediation of any problems, new incentives for improved urban and agricultural water use technologies, an expansion of diplomatic efforts to reduce water conflicts, a boost in resources available for domestic and international programs to provide safe water and sanitation for all, and the integration of climate science into water management and planning at federal agencies and facilities.

The paper closes:

“We have neglected the nation’s fresh water far too long. The next Administration and Congress have the opportunity and responsibility to ensure federal agencies, money, and regulations work to protect our waters, citizens, communities, and national interests.”

[The author, Dr. Peter Gleick, is co-founder and president emeritus of the Pacific Institute and currently serves as chief scientist. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and a MacArthur Fellow.]

Copies of the embargoed Science paper are distributed only by the AAAS Office of Public Programs, to working journalists. Reporters should contact +1-202-326-6440 or scipak@aaas.org. Others seeking copies of the paper may order them from www.sciencemag.org.

 

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2fj9oMI

Scientists reveal genetic ‘signatures’ left by cigarette smoke

Smoking kills.

That’s not news.

Researchers first found a link between smoking and lung cancer back in the 1950s. But science has moved on drastically since then. With better designed studies and more sophisticated techniques, our understanding of the harms caused by tobacco has significantly improved.

For starters, it’s not just lung cancer that smoking causes – the habit is now linked with at least 14 types of cancer, including pancreatic, oesophageal and bladder cancers.

But the big question is: how precisely does cigarette smoking harm the DNA in our cells to such a devastating degree that it causes cancer?

Now a detailed new study, led by scientists at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and published in the journal Science, is beginning to reveal the details. And it seems that the situation is more complex, and more sinister, than previously appreciated.

Strikingly, it seems that different tissues of the body display different hallmarks of smoking damage, underlining once again just how devastating smoking can be.

Mixing up the alphabet

More than a quarter of all cancer deaths in the UK are down to smoking. And the habit accounts for nearly a fifth of all cancer cases, alongside causing a whole host of other diseases and health problems.

The reason puffing on cigarettes is so harmful is because tobacco smoke is jam-packed with chemicals, of which more than 70 may cause cancer. These make their way from the lungs into the blood, spreading around the body to our various organs and wreaking havoc wherever they go.

You can find hundreds, if not thousands of different genetic faults in tumours.

– Professor David Phillips, Cancer Research UK

It’s thought that many of these chemicals raise the risk of cancer by directly damaging our DNA code. If left unrepaired, this damage can sometimes cause the cell to grow out of control, which may lead to cancer.

“You can find hundreds, if not thousands of different genetic faults in tumours,” says Professor David Phillips, a Cancer Research UK scientist and one of the researchers who helped lead the new study. “Together these give you a record of what the tumour-causing cells have been exposed to over a long period, as they accumulate over time.”

And these faults come in a variety of different patterns, depending on how the string of ‘letters’ in the DNA code has been jumbled. These distinct patterns are known as ‘signatures’, and they represent the focus of the latest study.

“Some of these ‘signatures’ can be attributed to a particular process in the cell, or a certain carcinogen from the environment,” Phillips says. “But many are of unknown origin.”

A familiar sign

In their latest study, the Sanger team looked at DNA samples from a range of tumours spanning 2500 smokers and more than 1000 people who had never smoked. By comparing smokers and non-smokers, the team hoped to find the genetic ‘signatures’ in cancer that are linked with smoking.

They found that only those tissues directly exposed to cigarette smoke, like the lungs, experience a direct assault to their DNA. In other tissues it seems the harmful substances in cigarette smoke are accelerating natural processes in the cell that can cause DNA damage.

While the researchers found a number of distinct ‘signatures’ across the cancer types, just five were found in higher levels in tumour samples from smokers. This suggests that there are at least five distinct ways that smoking can damage DNA.

One of the signatures, number 4, particularly piqued the interest of the researchers. This was only found in cancers linked to smoking, and was mostly limited to areas of the body that come into direct contact with cigarette smoke, including the lungs and voice box. It also looked very similar to the ‘signature’ scientists see if they expose cells in a dish to a particular carcinogen found in tobacco smoke.

“This ‘smoking signature’ is a close match to the one caused by the carcinogen benzo[a]pyrene,” says Phillips.

“It’s found in high levels in smokers, but you don’t often see it in lung cancer samples from non-smokers, nor was it found in tissues that aren’t directly exposed to tobacco smoke.”

In quite a striking contrast, another ‘signature’ – number 5 – was found in all cancers, rather than just those linked with smoking. And it was also present in non-smokers. The signature was still found at higher levels in samples from those who smoked though, suggesting smoking accelerates this damage, but the team believe a different mechanism is causing it.

In fact, this signature appears to be the result of an unknown process within cells that naturally causes genetic faults to build up throughout a person’s life.

“We don’t know what this exact process is, but it appears to be causing an accumulation of genetic mistakes in a steady, clock-like rate over time,” explains Phillips.

“And somehow, smoking seems to be speeding this clock up. Smokers have more of these particular genetic faults than you would expect for their age.”

Written in the cells

What seems to be the emerging picture here is that the genetic damage caused by smoking is a complex mixture of direct harm to cells that are exposed to tobacco smoke itself, and indirect harm in those that aren’t.

“Even though we know that tobacco carcinogens travel throughout the body to other tissues, it appears that they aren’t directly damaging the DNA in these areas.

“Instead they’re activating another process that accelerates the formation of genetic mistakes.”

And the burden of being directly exposed to cigarette smoke became even clearer when the researchers married up smoking rates with the numbers of genetic faults found in various cancers.

Working backwards, the researchers found that smoking a pack of cigarettes a day could cause roughly 150 new DNA mistakes to appear in normal lung cells each year. And other tissues of the respiratory system – the larynx, pharynx and mouth – weren’t far behind, racking up 97, 39 and 23 each year, respectively.

But while the research seems to be providing some answers, it has also left lingering questions.

“Cervical cancers showed a range of signatures, but we couldn’t distinguish between smokers and non-smokers,” says Phillips.

“Many studies have shown that smoking is a risk factor for cervical cancer, but whether it’s independent of the human papillomavirus – which some argue underlies all cervical cancers – is up for debate.”

Clearing the haze

Clearly there is more work to be done to unravel the true spectrum of genetic harm caused by smoking.

But at the very least this research reinforces the severity of the situation at hand, highlighting the fact that smoking can both directly and indirectly damage DNA.

According to Dr Nicholas McGranahan, a Francis Crick Institute scientist who was not involved in the research, this discovery is key.

“As has long been established, smoking clearly plays a role in triggering the development of tumours by directly causing DNA damage,” he says.

This research isn’t telling us anything new about the fact that tobacco smoke causes cancer, but it’s giving us insight into how.

– Professor David Phillips

“But this work also highlights the role that smoking can have in activating additional processes which may make the tumour even more difficult to treat.”

That’s why this research is so important. Because understanding more about how risk factors cause cancer can help scientists develop better ways to tackle them, or develop strategies to reduce people’s risk.

While this research may be a stark reminder of the devastation caused by smoking, it’s important to stress that it’s never too late to quit: those who stop smoking show an improved life expectancy compared with those who continue to smoke.

And giving up in middle age negates most of the subsequent risk of developing lung cancer.

“This research isn’t telling us anything new about the fact that tobacco smoke causes cancer, but it’s giving us insight into how,” says Phillips.

“And it’s telling us that cigarette smoke is not doing the same thing in different tissues, highlighting the complexity of its effects.”

If you’re a smoker, there’s lots of free support available to give you the best possible chance of kicking the habit. And if you’d like to help our campaign to keep Stop Smoking Services free, you can find out how to take action here.

Justine

Alexandrov, L. B. et al. 2016. Mutational signatures associated with tobacco smoking in human cancer. Science.

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2flKOcy

Smoking kills.

That’s not news.

Researchers first found a link between smoking and lung cancer back in the 1950s. But science has moved on drastically since then. With better designed studies and more sophisticated techniques, our understanding of the harms caused by tobacco has significantly improved.

For starters, it’s not just lung cancer that smoking causes – the habit is now linked with at least 14 types of cancer, including pancreatic, oesophageal and bladder cancers.

But the big question is: how precisely does cigarette smoking harm the DNA in our cells to such a devastating degree that it causes cancer?

Now a detailed new study, led by scientists at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and published in the journal Science, is beginning to reveal the details. And it seems that the situation is more complex, and more sinister, than previously appreciated.

Strikingly, it seems that different tissues of the body display different hallmarks of smoking damage, underlining once again just how devastating smoking can be.

Mixing up the alphabet

More than a quarter of all cancer deaths in the UK are down to smoking. And the habit accounts for nearly a fifth of all cancer cases, alongside causing a whole host of other diseases and health problems.

The reason puffing on cigarettes is so harmful is because tobacco smoke is jam-packed with chemicals, of which more than 70 may cause cancer. These make their way from the lungs into the blood, spreading around the body to our various organs and wreaking havoc wherever they go.

You can find hundreds, if not thousands of different genetic faults in tumours.

– Professor David Phillips, Cancer Research UK

It’s thought that many of these chemicals raise the risk of cancer by directly damaging our DNA code. If left unrepaired, this damage can sometimes cause the cell to grow out of control, which may lead to cancer.

“You can find hundreds, if not thousands of different genetic faults in tumours,” says Professor David Phillips, a Cancer Research UK scientist and one of the researchers who helped lead the new study. “Together these give you a record of what the tumour-causing cells have been exposed to over a long period, as they accumulate over time.”

And these faults come in a variety of different patterns, depending on how the string of ‘letters’ in the DNA code has been jumbled. These distinct patterns are known as ‘signatures’, and they represent the focus of the latest study.

“Some of these ‘signatures’ can be attributed to a particular process in the cell, or a certain carcinogen from the environment,” Phillips says. “But many are of unknown origin.”

A familiar sign

In their latest study, the Sanger team looked at DNA samples from a range of tumours spanning 2500 smokers and more than 1000 people who had never smoked. By comparing smokers and non-smokers, the team hoped to find the genetic ‘signatures’ in cancer that are linked with smoking.

They found that only those tissues directly exposed to cigarette smoke, like the lungs, experience a direct assault to their DNA. In other tissues it seems the harmful substances in cigarette smoke are accelerating natural processes in the cell that can cause DNA damage.

While the researchers found a number of distinct ‘signatures’ across the cancer types, just five were found in higher levels in tumour samples from smokers. This suggests that there are at least five distinct ways that smoking can damage DNA.

One of the signatures, number 4, particularly piqued the interest of the researchers. This was only found in cancers linked to smoking, and was mostly limited to areas of the body that come into direct contact with cigarette smoke, including the lungs and voice box. It also looked very similar to the ‘signature’ scientists see if they expose cells in a dish to a particular carcinogen found in tobacco smoke.

“This ‘smoking signature’ is a close match to the one caused by the carcinogen benzo[a]pyrene,” says Phillips.

“It’s found in high levels in smokers, but you don’t often see it in lung cancer samples from non-smokers, nor was it found in tissues that aren’t directly exposed to tobacco smoke.”

In quite a striking contrast, another ‘signature’ – number 5 – was found in all cancers, rather than just those linked with smoking. And it was also present in non-smokers. The signature was still found at higher levels in samples from those who smoked though, suggesting smoking accelerates this damage, but the team believe a different mechanism is causing it.

In fact, this signature appears to be the result of an unknown process within cells that naturally causes genetic faults to build up throughout a person’s life.

“We don’t know what this exact process is, but it appears to be causing an accumulation of genetic mistakes in a steady, clock-like rate over time,” explains Phillips.

“And somehow, smoking seems to be speeding this clock up. Smokers have more of these particular genetic faults than you would expect for their age.”

Written in the cells

What seems to be the emerging picture here is that the genetic damage caused by smoking is a complex mixture of direct harm to cells that are exposed to tobacco smoke itself, and indirect harm in those that aren’t.

“Even though we know that tobacco carcinogens travel throughout the body to other tissues, it appears that they aren’t directly damaging the DNA in these areas.

“Instead they’re activating another process that accelerates the formation of genetic mistakes.”

And the burden of being directly exposed to cigarette smoke became even clearer when the researchers married up smoking rates with the numbers of genetic faults found in various cancers.

Working backwards, the researchers found that smoking a pack of cigarettes a day could cause roughly 150 new DNA mistakes to appear in normal lung cells each year. And other tissues of the respiratory system – the larynx, pharynx and mouth – weren’t far behind, racking up 97, 39 and 23 each year, respectively.

But while the research seems to be providing some answers, it has also left lingering questions.

“Cervical cancers showed a range of signatures, but we couldn’t distinguish between smokers and non-smokers,” says Phillips.

“Many studies have shown that smoking is a risk factor for cervical cancer, but whether it’s independent of the human papillomavirus – which some argue underlies all cervical cancers – is up for debate.”

Clearing the haze

Clearly there is more work to be done to unravel the true spectrum of genetic harm caused by smoking.

But at the very least this research reinforces the severity of the situation at hand, highlighting the fact that smoking can both directly and indirectly damage DNA.

According to Dr Nicholas McGranahan, a Francis Crick Institute scientist who was not involved in the research, this discovery is key.

“As has long been established, smoking clearly plays a role in triggering the development of tumours by directly causing DNA damage,” he says.

This research isn’t telling us anything new about the fact that tobacco smoke causes cancer, but it’s giving us insight into how.

– Professor David Phillips

“But this work also highlights the role that smoking can have in activating additional processes which may make the tumour even more difficult to treat.”

That’s why this research is so important. Because understanding more about how risk factors cause cancer can help scientists develop better ways to tackle them, or develop strategies to reduce people’s risk.

While this research may be a stark reminder of the devastation caused by smoking, it’s important to stress that it’s never too late to quit: those who stop smoking show an improved life expectancy compared with those who continue to smoke.

And giving up in middle age negates most of the subsequent risk of developing lung cancer.

“This research isn’t telling us anything new about the fact that tobacco smoke causes cancer, but it’s giving us insight into how,” says Phillips.

“And it’s telling us that cigarette smoke is not doing the same thing in different tissues, highlighting the complexity of its effects.”

If you’re a smoker, there’s lots of free support available to give you the best possible chance of kicking the habit. And if you’d like to help our campaign to keep Stop Smoking Services free, you can find out how to take action here.

Justine

Alexandrov, L. B. et al. 2016. Mutational signatures associated with tobacco smoking in human cancer. Science.

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2flKOcy

Highlights from final day at APHA’s Annual Meeting [The Pump Handle]

Kim Krisberg and I were in Denver this week at APHA’s 2016 Annual Meeting and Exposition — the year’s largest gathering of public health professionals. In our blog posts from earlier this week (here, here, here) we recapped just a few of the scientific sessions and events from the week. Below are some highlights from the final day at the meeting. You can read many more courtesy of the APHA Annual Meeting Blog.

Public health in the headlines: How does news coverage impact health?: Media. It’s everywhere these days. So, it’s not surprising that it impacts our health and behaviors as well as our perception of serious public health problems. Such influence was the topic of a Wednesday morning Annual Meeting session on “Media News Coverage of Health and Risk,” which began with a deeper look at how the media covers community violence and safety. Presenter Laura Nixon, of the Berkeley Media Studies Group, studied news coverage of community violence in California from 2013 to 2015. She found that the kinds of community violence solutions represented in the media evolved over the years. For example, in 2013, policing was most commonly reported as a solution. But in 2014 and 2015, community prevention programs became the top solution cited in media coverage. Continue reading

For a LARC: It’s no joke — better training expands contraception access: Long-acting reversible contraceptives — intrauterine devices and birth control implants — are the most effective methods to prevent pregnancy. But too many people who want to choose LARC as their form of birth control are unable to get it in a timely manner because community health clinic staff is untrained or unprepared to perform an insertion.

But that doesn’t have to be the case. At a Wednesday morning session on “Expanding LARC Access and Training the Community Health Workforce,” reproductive health experts shared their tools for success in preparing community health clinic staff to stock, educate about and insert IUDs and implants. Continue reading

Farmers markets, community gardens improve health. And not just for rich people: Farmers markets are great for our health, especially our nutrition. But there’s one big problem. “Unfortunately, the people that shop at farmers markets are usually white, middle-to-high income, highly educated and female,” said Jennifer Casey, executive director of the Fondy Food Center in Wisconsin, at an Annual Meeting session on “Community Gardens and Food Systems to Increase Fruit and Vegetable Consumption.” “And that’s missing a huge segment of our population.”

In both Wisconsin and Wyoming, researchers have taken giant steps to increase access to healthy food systems like farmers markets and community gardens. For example, Casey and researchers from the Medical College of Wisconsin collaborated on a two-year program to improve access to healthy food for diverse populations — especially people who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. Continue reading

Taking on obesity one soda at a time: Because problems like overweight and obesity don’t respect county borders, public health agencies are finding more ways to work together.  An example: the Denver area Metro Healthy Beverage Partnership that’s already had success in raising awareness about sugary beverage consumption and is helping local communities change their unhealthy ways. The partnership formed in 2013 after six health departments (which cover seven Denver area counties and more than half the population of Colorado) decided to zero in on obesity and the risk factor of sugary beverage consumption as a priority.

“I must say, I thought, writing a grant across six health departments, that’s going to be like herding cats,” said John Douglas, director of the Tri-County Health Department. But focusing on a common goal has proven easier than he expected, he told Annual Meeting attendees during a Wednesday session “A Collective Impact Approach to Reducing Sugary Beverage Consumption in Denver Metro.” Continue reading

Children who witness violence or are sexually abused are 3 and 5 times more likely to inject drugs as adults: Children who are sexually abused are nearly five times more likely to inject drugs in adulthood as those who are not — while children who witness violence are about three times more likely — according to new research released today at the American Public Health Association’s 2016 Annual Meeting and Expo in Denver.

Researchers from NYU School of Medicine and The Center for Drug Use and HIV/HCV Research used a nationally representative sample of more than 12,000 Americans to explore associations between nine childhood traumas and adult drug use. Additionally: the association between sexual abuse during childhood and injection drug use was more than seven times as strong for males as females. Continue reading

Catch up on all the news from the APHA Annual Meeting here.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2fgF311

Kim Krisberg and I were in Denver this week at APHA’s 2016 Annual Meeting and Exposition — the year’s largest gathering of public health professionals. In our blog posts from earlier this week (here, here, here) we recapped just a few of the scientific sessions and events from the week. Below are some highlights from the final day at the meeting. You can read many more courtesy of the APHA Annual Meeting Blog.

Public health in the headlines: How does news coverage impact health?: Media. It’s everywhere these days. So, it’s not surprising that it impacts our health and behaviors as well as our perception of serious public health problems. Such influence was the topic of a Wednesday morning Annual Meeting session on “Media News Coverage of Health and Risk,” which began with a deeper look at how the media covers community violence and safety. Presenter Laura Nixon, of the Berkeley Media Studies Group, studied news coverage of community violence in California from 2013 to 2015. She found that the kinds of community violence solutions represented in the media evolved over the years. For example, in 2013, policing was most commonly reported as a solution. But in 2014 and 2015, community prevention programs became the top solution cited in media coverage. Continue reading

For a LARC: It’s no joke — better training expands contraception access: Long-acting reversible contraceptives — intrauterine devices and birth control implants — are the most effective methods to prevent pregnancy. But too many people who want to choose LARC as their form of birth control are unable to get it in a timely manner because community health clinic staff is untrained or unprepared to perform an insertion.

But that doesn’t have to be the case. At a Wednesday morning session on “Expanding LARC Access and Training the Community Health Workforce,” reproductive health experts shared their tools for success in preparing community health clinic staff to stock, educate about and insert IUDs and implants. Continue reading

Farmers markets, community gardens improve health. And not just for rich people: Farmers markets are great for our health, especially our nutrition. But there’s one big problem. “Unfortunately, the people that shop at farmers markets are usually white, middle-to-high income, highly educated and female,” said Jennifer Casey, executive director of the Fondy Food Center in Wisconsin, at an Annual Meeting session on “Community Gardens and Food Systems to Increase Fruit and Vegetable Consumption.” “And that’s missing a huge segment of our population.”

In both Wisconsin and Wyoming, researchers have taken giant steps to increase access to healthy food systems like farmers markets and community gardens. For example, Casey and researchers from the Medical College of Wisconsin collaborated on a two-year program to improve access to healthy food for diverse populations — especially people who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. Continue reading

Taking on obesity one soda at a time: Because problems like overweight and obesity don’t respect county borders, public health agencies are finding more ways to work together.  An example: the Denver area Metro Healthy Beverage Partnership that’s already had success in raising awareness about sugary beverage consumption and is helping local communities change their unhealthy ways. The partnership formed in 2013 after six health departments (which cover seven Denver area counties and more than half the population of Colorado) decided to zero in on obesity and the risk factor of sugary beverage consumption as a priority.

“I must say, I thought, writing a grant across six health departments, that’s going to be like herding cats,” said John Douglas, director of the Tri-County Health Department. But focusing on a common goal has proven easier than he expected, he told Annual Meeting attendees during a Wednesday session “A Collective Impact Approach to Reducing Sugary Beverage Consumption in Denver Metro.” Continue reading

Children who witness violence or are sexually abused are 3 and 5 times more likely to inject drugs as adults: Children who are sexually abused are nearly five times more likely to inject drugs in adulthood as those who are not — while children who witness violence are about three times more likely — according to new research released today at the American Public Health Association’s 2016 Annual Meeting and Expo in Denver.

Researchers from NYU School of Medicine and The Center for Drug Use and HIV/HCV Research used a nationally representative sample of more than 12,000 Americans to explore associations between nine childhood traumas and adult drug use. Additionally: the association between sexual abuse during childhood and injection drug use was more than seven times as strong for males as females. Continue reading

Catch up on all the news from the APHA Annual Meeting here.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2fgF311

APHA adopts policies on minimum wage, fluorinated chemicals at annual meeting [The Pump Handle]

The American Public Health Association (APHA) adopted 11 new policy statements which will guide its work in the coming years. They include:

Raising the minimum wage: The policy calls on states to increase their minimum wage, index the minimum wage to inflation, and prohibit state-government preemption of municipal minimum wage policies. Among other things, the new APHA policy also recommends research on the effects of living wages on public assistance budgets.

Reducing exposure to highly fluorinated chemicals: The policy calls on Congress to fund research on alternatives to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). The compounds are used in clothing and other consumer product to make them waterproof, stain-resistant, or non-stick. The new APHA policy also urges the implementation of protective drinking water advisories and development of mitigation strategies in the event of releases of PFASs.  Among other things, APHA calls on federal and state officials to require labeling of products that contain PFASs.

Improving oral health for persons with developmental disabilities: The policy calls on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to require state funding to cover dental services for adults living with such disabilities, and on the Health Resources and Services Administration to increase access to federally qualified health clinics for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. APHA notes that people living with intellectual and developmental disabilities typically experience poorer oral health outcomes than people without such disabilities.

In addition, APHA adopted a “late-breaker” policy statement on law enforcement violence. The policy calls for a public health strategy to prevent police violence against the public. Lethal and other encounters with the police disproportionately involve people of color and people in marginalized communities. The public health strategy would involve: decriminalization of non-violent crime, robust police accountability measures, increased investment in racial and economic equity policies, and community-based alternatives for addressing harms and preventing violence and crime. The policy also calls on Congress to fund research on the health consequences of police violence, and encourages government agencies to eliminate policies and practices that lead to disproportionate violence against specific populations.

The complete policy statements, which include evidence-based descriptions of the problem and recommendation will be available on-line in early 2017.

 

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2fj0qiC

The American Public Health Association (APHA) adopted 11 new policy statements which will guide its work in the coming years. They include:

Raising the minimum wage: The policy calls on states to increase their minimum wage, index the minimum wage to inflation, and prohibit state-government preemption of municipal minimum wage policies. Among other things, the new APHA policy also recommends research on the effects of living wages on public assistance budgets.

Reducing exposure to highly fluorinated chemicals: The policy calls on Congress to fund research on alternatives to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). The compounds are used in clothing and other consumer product to make them waterproof, stain-resistant, or non-stick. The new APHA policy also urges the implementation of protective drinking water advisories and development of mitigation strategies in the event of releases of PFASs.  Among other things, APHA calls on federal and state officials to require labeling of products that contain PFASs.

Improving oral health for persons with developmental disabilities: The policy calls on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to require state funding to cover dental services for adults living with such disabilities, and on the Health Resources and Services Administration to increase access to federally qualified health clinics for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. APHA notes that people living with intellectual and developmental disabilities typically experience poorer oral health outcomes than people without such disabilities.

In addition, APHA adopted a “late-breaker” policy statement on law enforcement violence. The policy calls for a public health strategy to prevent police violence against the public. Lethal and other encounters with the police disproportionately involve people of color and people in marginalized communities. The public health strategy would involve: decriminalization of non-violent crime, robust police accountability measures, increased investment in racial and economic equity policies, and community-based alternatives for addressing harms and preventing violence and crime. The policy also calls on Congress to fund research on the health consequences of police violence, and encourages government agencies to eliminate policies and practices that lead to disproportionate violence against specific populations.

The complete policy statements, which include evidence-based descriptions of the problem and recommendation will be available on-line in early 2017.

 

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2fj0qiC

Barack Obama is the first climate president

My how far we’ve come in less than eight years. We have seen happen what those of us in the climate and energy fields knew could happen. The US has become a world leader on climate change, dramatically increased our production of clean and renewable fuels, reduced our emissions of greenhouse gases, signed major international agreements to continue progress into the future, and have done so without cost increases or power disruptions that the denial community proclaimed would occur.

As we in the United States get ready to elect a new president, it is helpful to think about the impact a president can have. Particularly since we transitioned from the worst climate president ever (Bush) to the best (Obama). I am going to detail what I think are Obama’s signature accomplishments.

In my mind, the most important part of President Obama’s legacy on climate is that he changed the conversation. He showed that not only should the US play a role in reducing emissions, but we can do just that. He showed that this problem isn’t too big to solve. In fact, most of the solutions are subtle enough that we don’t even notice them. He showed that we can change our future for the better.

With respect to specific actions, the Clean Power Plan is one of his biggest accomplishments. By working with the EPA, he created the first ever carbon pollution standards for the largest source of pollution – power plants. He did this in the midst of a do-nothing congress that fought him every step of the way.

Under his presidency, we made huge investments in clean energy, which are paying off already. Jump starts to the wind and solar industry have led to enormous cost decreases – dirty energy isn’t cheaper anymore. It is really astonishing – wind power has tripled and solar power has increased by 30 times since he took office. 

Under his presidency, we improved standards for fuel economy of our vehicles, which not only reduces pollution but also saves money. Furthermore, Obama set targets to reduce the federal government’s emissions by nearly 20% by 2025. He has worked to reduce other types of greenhouse gases such as methane and hydrofluorocarbons, not only within the US but through international agreements.

And those aren’t the only international efforts. Obama made a joint plan with China that is almost unbelievably ambitious. It will reduce our emissions by approximately 27% by 2025 and puts major limits on Chinese emissions as well. He also forged an agreement with India to help low-income countries transition to modern economies that are not as polluting as current developed nations.

There are many more items which would be too numerous to mention but I wanted to know how his presidency is viewed within Washington DC. I mean, among climate scientists, he is the president we’ve been waiting for, but what do legislators think? I asked representative Betty McCollum from Minnesota for her view. Ms. McCollum has a long history of focusing on the environment in general and climate change in particular – long before it was popular. She told me:

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/2ffMuYU

My how far we’ve come in less than eight years. We have seen happen what those of us in the climate and energy fields knew could happen. The US has become a world leader on climate change, dramatically increased our production of clean and renewable fuels, reduced our emissions of greenhouse gases, signed major international agreements to continue progress into the future, and have done so without cost increases or power disruptions that the denial community proclaimed would occur.

As we in the United States get ready to elect a new president, it is helpful to think about the impact a president can have. Particularly since we transitioned from the worst climate president ever (Bush) to the best (Obama). I am going to detail what I think are Obama’s signature accomplishments.

In my mind, the most important part of President Obama’s legacy on climate is that he changed the conversation. He showed that not only should the US play a role in reducing emissions, but we can do just that. He showed that this problem isn’t too big to solve. In fact, most of the solutions are subtle enough that we don’t even notice them. He showed that we can change our future for the better.

With respect to specific actions, the Clean Power Plan is one of his biggest accomplishments. By working with the EPA, he created the first ever carbon pollution standards for the largest source of pollution – power plants. He did this in the midst of a do-nothing congress that fought him every step of the way.

Under his presidency, we made huge investments in clean energy, which are paying off already. Jump starts to the wind and solar industry have led to enormous cost decreases – dirty energy isn’t cheaper anymore. It is really astonishing – wind power has tripled and solar power has increased by 30 times since he took office. 

Under his presidency, we improved standards for fuel economy of our vehicles, which not only reduces pollution but also saves money. Furthermore, Obama set targets to reduce the federal government’s emissions by nearly 20% by 2025. He has worked to reduce other types of greenhouse gases such as methane and hydrofluorocarbons, not only within the US but through international agreements.

And those aren’t the only international efforts. Obama made a joint plan with China that is almost unbelievably ambitious. It will reduce our emissions by approximately 27% by 2025 and puts major limits on Chinese emissions as well. He also forged an agreement with India to help low-income countries transition to modern economies that are not as polluting as current developed nations.

There are many more items which would be too numerous to mention but I wanted to know how his presidency is viewed within Washington DC. I mean, among climate scientists, he is the president we’ve been waiting for, but what do legislators think? I asked representative Betty McCollum from Minnesota for her view. Ms. McCollum has a long history of focusing on the environment in general and climate change in particular – long before it was popular. She told me:

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/2ffMuYU