Spokane7
68°
February 3, 2012 in Idaho
Longtime environmental activist receives award
Julian Powers, a retired electrical engineer, sits in his kitchen at his South Hill home Thursday. Powers, long an outspoken firebrand on issues of climate change, is being recognized with an award for his work on environmental issues.
(Full-size photo)
Friends called him “Mr. Global Warming.” He attacked inaction by politicians and used science to draw people into discussions.
“He would talk to anyone who would walk by,” said his wife, Jane Cunningham. “He sent information to legislators, to politicians and other environmentalists – anyone he could think of who would read it.”
Said Grant Pfeiffer, the Washington Department of Ecology’s eastern regional director: “He had a vision so far ahead of cultural consciousness.”
For his persistent advocacy work, Powers, 85, will receive the Department of Ecology’s top award in a ceremony tonight at the Saranac Building. The Environmental Excellence Award recognizes his work on climate change education and related efforts on aquifer protection, air quality and bike transportation.
After a stroke two years ago, Powers had to give up bike riding. But he’s still a persuasive speaker who calls for urgent action to reduce carbon emissions.
“My biggest single concern is for future generations,” he said in a recent interview. “We’re at an advanced stage of environmental degradation. Our grandchildren will inherit an Earth that isn’t nearly as hospitable to Homo sapiens.”
Powers first became aware of global warming in the 1970s, when he read “Hothouse Earth” by Howard A. Wilcox, an environmental scientist who was one of Powers’ supervisors in the U.S. Navy, where Powers worked as a civilian engineer.
Wilcox didn’t have access to the detailed climate research that exists today. But he made amazingly accurate projections based on anticipated population growth, rates of industrialization and increased use of fossil fuels, Powers said.
The book made a lasting impression on Powers. After he retired at age 54, he traveled worldwide, which deepened his commitment to environmental protection.
In 1990, Powers met his wife at a potluck at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane. He and Cunningham seek to live their beliefs. Powers was a bike commuter during his working years. The couple started a recycling program at their church. They compost, conserve water and put less than 4,000 miles on their Toyota Prius each year through trip reduction.
The couple also championed environmental causes in Spokane, advocating for clean air and water and promoting political candidates who supported their beliefs.
When BNSF Railway Co. wanted to build a train refueling depot in Hauser, Idaho, the couple joined Friends of the Aquifer to raise awareness about the threat to the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, the sole source of drinking water for more than 500,000 local residents.
“Julian helped in bringing this issue of aquifer vulnerability to the community,” said Dr. John Osborn, a Sierra Club representative and longtime environmental activist in Spokane. “He recognized that the state boundary is artificial and that BNSF’s decision to locate their fuel depot in Idaho didn’t change the physical reality that drinking water in Washington state was threatened.”
Shortly after the depot opened, leaks were discovered and the depot closed while repairs were made.
“The other side of Julian’s visionary work has been warning the community about the perils of a warming climate,” Osborn said. “It’s worthy to recognize those that had the vision early on to sound the warnings.”
But Powers said he remains disappointed by society’s seeming indifference to global warming, despite the scientific data supporting it.
“I don’t see a big change in the public attitude,” he said. “Those who benefit by inaction are the ones making the arguments against global warming.”
His letters to the editor frequently appear in The Spokesman-Review. They express urgency over the consequences of climate change, which scientists say will increase the frequency of severe storms and heat waves, and result in more-intense forest fires, potential water shortages and the expected loss of many wildlife species.
“He’d like to live long enough to see people believe (in climate change),” Cunningham said.
Tax-protesting Idaho state rep files for bankruptcy 
oneanddone on February 03 at 5:50 a.m.
Maybe he can sue Al Gore for stealing his idea - oh, wait - he stole it from Wilcox … who stole if from … who stole it from …
polistra on February 03 at 7:10 a.m.
Well, I guess it’s nice to see that a Useful Idiot can go through his entire life without learning anything.
Wouldn’t it be unique if a journalist wrote a profile of someone who was capable of perceiving facts and reality? I’m not holding my breath.
force_vector on February 03 at 7:23 a.m.
Polistra - Having a difference in opinion from that of your own doesn’t qualify someone as an idiot. However, those who would minimize an entire lifetime of work into one disagreement, qualifies exactly.
Diana on February 03 at 7:32 a.m.
Speaking of useful idiots, polistra, are you a climate scientist?
The_Seer on February 03 at 7:44 a.m.
The resident climate change denying tools oneanddone and pollutestruth have chimed in I see. They must have installed some type of software on their computers that sets off an alarm anytime the SR posts a story related to global warning. Let’s call it the “Chance to be a moron while denying what’s right in front of your nose” application.
gmorton on February 03 at 8:04 a.m.
The_Seer wrote,
“They must have installed some type of software on their computers that sets off an alarm anytime the SR posts a story related to global warning.”
I hope they’ll share it with me. It would be handy, given that the S-R’s editors are still firmly hooked on that kool-aid.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?KEYWORDS=global+warming
Diana on February 03 at 8:15 a.m.
gmorton, I read that also. WSJ did a wonderful job of presenting one side of the climate argument; hence, it is on the opinion page.
Kool-aid. Heh.
force_vector on February 03 at 8:16 a.m.
I don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change. However, I can appreciate someone who walks the walk, while talking the talk. Clean air, clean water, less reliance of fossil fuels; these are all great goals. It’s unfortunate that they have been tied to hysteria-based politics masquerading as science. Maybe someday we’ll be better than that.
samvimes on February 03 at 8:30 a.m.
All you need to know about this crowd:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
Orphan on February 03 at 8:35 a.m.
Well said force vector well said.
nslopeofw on February 03 at 8:37 a.m.
Good thing he wasn’t involved for the name change to “climate change” which somehow claims any change in climate is a man made issue, and must be stopped.
All those pesky cold temps and the 10 year decline in average world temperatures could have made his life’s work seem a bit off.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2095509/Eastern-European-death-toll-hits-150-big-freeze-continues-continent.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
nslopeofw on February 03 at 8:42 a.m.
So, if you don’t buy into climate alarmist propaganda, you are now a “tool”. We cant have different opinions, its either the liberal view, or you are a tool.
Real inclusive.
You liberals need to start being a bit less bigoted and disrespectful. It’s what you ask from the rest of the world.
gmorton on February 03 at 8:50 a.m.
Diana wrote,
“WSJ did a wonderful job of presenting one side of the climate argument; hence, it is on the opinion page.”
Actually, they presented both sides (full disclosure here). Here is the “hockey team’s” rebuttal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html?KEYWORDS=global+warming
Also check out Pat Michael’s response to the Trenberth *et al* response:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=14073
gotcha on February 03 at 8:58 a.m.
Green energy + corrupt politicans = nice campaign contributations.
Its nice playing God with tax payers money.
rosehips on February 03 at 9:06 a.m.
force-vector said: “I don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change”
force, please enlighten us on what brought you to this conclusion. Can you provide any experts in the field who you rely on for your information?
Show me a person who doesn’t believe that humans contribute to the acceleration of global warming and I will show you a person devoid of factual information and someone influenced by a campaign of deception.
Please read anything by James Hansen and get back to us on what you disagree with him about. Please cite your sources.
rosehips on February 03 at 9:13 a.m.
gmorton, the WSJ is well known for their lop-sided coverage of global warming.
Please read “Merchants of Doubt.”
Many of the same scientists who worked for the Tobacco Institute to debunk claims that cigarettes and second-hand smoke cause cancer also were behind the “science” that debunked acid rain, ozone depletion, DDT and many other fabricated “myths.”
These men were not experts in the field that they attacked but that didn’t stop the government, media, or ignorant people from buying their lies hook, line and sinker.
Is this the legacy we want for our future generations? That we overlooked facts so that we could maintain our consumptive lifestyles?
How will you explain to your grandkids how foolish you were? Or will you just continue the lying and say “We didn’t know”?
rosehips on February 03 at 9:15 a.m.
And anyone who cites the Cato Institute as a source for information about global warming is either disingenuous or really out of touch with the truth.
force_vector on February 03 at 9:25 a.m.
rosehips - Something about the tone of your question sounds both disrespectful, and submissive.
My opinion regarding anthropogenic global warming is based on my background as a physical scientist. I have explained many times on here why I disagree with those who would state conclusively that AGW has moved from not just a hypothesis, or even a theory, but instead law. I don’t believe in something until I see sufficient evidence to do so. So, until such day as I believe in something, I don’t believe. Make sense? As I said before, the science behind all of this has been hijacked by interest groups and politicians. Can you imagine where we’d be in our quest to understand, in greater detail, quantum mechanics had something similar occurred with that topic?
“and I will show you a person devoid of factual information and someone influenced by a campaign of deception. ”
Indeed.
gmorton on February 03 at 9:47 a.m.
roisehips wrote,
“Please read anything by James Hansen and get back to us on what you disagree with him about. Please cite your sources.”
Try this:
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/3434/ipcchansen1980to2020.png
“Many of the same scientists who worked for the Tobacco Institute to debunk claims that cigarettes and second-hand smoke cause cancer also were behind the “science” that debunked acid rain, ozone depletion, DDT and many other fabricated ‘myths.’”
Anyone who challenged the myth about “2nd hand smoke” and cancer deserves a pat on the back. It is as large a pile of bee-ess as the CAGW theory.
http://www.fumento.com/disease/smoking.html
And, rose, citing the source of funding for a study does not refute it. Nor does touting anyone’s credentials. Those are merely *ad hominem* arguments. What you need to consider is the evidence – namely, the IPCC’s projected temps vs. reality over the last 11 years.
gotcha on February 03 at 9:50 a.m.
I remember the ice age. Things change. Learn to adapt or become extinct.
jessiepn on February 03 at 9:51 a.m.
NIce to see that so many members of the flat-earth society are here today to add their comments. “Looks flat to me!” “Seems pretty cold out to me!”
Oh, and by the way – congratulations, Julian. You’ve worked long and hard for a lifetime to battle the forces of ignorance. It certainly is through no fault of yours that so many people still seem to be ignorant, deliberately or otherwise.
gmorton on February 03 at 9:55 a.m.
rosehips wrote,
“Show me a person who doesn’t believe that humans contribute to the acceleration of global warming … ”
That is not what is in question, rose. Apparently you are not familiar with the actual argument.
greenlibertarian on February 03 at 10:07 a.m.
Murdoch’s utterly debunked piece by non-climate scientists doesn’t yet rise to the level of Komen’s stupidity, but it’s close.
If Murdoch had a soul or an actual positive reputation to protect, he’d backtrack on the garbage he had the dupes present as fact.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLEThirdBucket
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 03 at 10:37 a.m.
Funny the conservatives on here trying to deny climate change. Whats even funnier….is your Tea Party conservative sugar daddies the Koch Brothers paid to have a study done to denounce climate change, only to have the scientist who was leading the study conclude climate change was real.
Like my avatar says…..OOPS!
Why don’t you conservatives ever site this study?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/1021/Climate-study-funded-in-part-by-conservative-group-confirms-global-warming
Mr_Injustice on February 03 at 10:53 a.m.
I wish I was old enough to have taken advantage of the fear caused by Global Warming. I could have started some green energy businesses that dont have to produce anything. Or I could have gotten on the ground floor of Al Gore’s business ventures. There was so much money to be made off of this phenom, global warming is up for debate and only time will tell.
I hope the well hasn’t run dry. There are plenty of left leaning saps with pockets full of money I’d surely like to plunder with snake oil.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 03 at 11:29 a.m.
Libby,,,get it right please. Nobody is denying climate change.
What is unkown is the anthropogenic component. Nobody knows. What we do know is that change in climate has been going on since history began. Read…well…try to read about he little ice age…google it. CO2, etc don’t seem to mean much..
Highest levels were 100 years ago…
It’s this mishmash of date. I know Anglia is no longer in commission because of it’s lies. The one thing about all the data being misrepresented or even fudged is that we might never know if man has much of a role….or if these past several years would have happened anyway….and it’s part of the swings in climate documented for decades.
Nice award for this man though. The award doesn’t confirm his thoughts…it’s just an “A” for his efforts.
samvimes on February 03 at 11:57 a.m.
“Why don’t you conservatives ever site this study?”
Maybe because we’d rather “cite” studies. I just love people who attempt to look down their noses at those disagreeing with their position while misspelling 4-letter words. OOPS!
The_Seer on February 03 at 12:05 p.m.
rosehips wrote: “And anyone who cites the Cato Institute as a source for information about global warming is either disingenuous or really out of touch with the truth.”
Allow me to introduce you to gmorton….
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 03 at 12:17 p.m.
samvimes, sorry I mistyped one word. Why don’t you call out dazzee for misspelling everything while looking down upon everyone who doesn’t agree with her….or you.
Yet again, pot meet kettle.
nslopeofw on February 03 at 12:17 p.m.
Dazzee-
Dont mix fact with the climate alarmists. Their story doesnt work if we admit the climate changes, or that perhaps some of what man does affects it. Its all or nothing. You cant have an opinion that differs with theirs. If you do, you get called names. A lot like the alleged “mainstream” scientists that purposely destroyed the careers of those that questioned the lack of data or how it was obtained. Remember, its all their way, or nothing. Just ask Komen.
Never, ever, ever are you to disagree with the left. They have all the answers, and their messiahs will lead us all to the promise land. Van Jones and Al Gore are the two top places we all must go (perhaps a bit of Michael Moore as well) to get our information. Or IPCC where the University of East Anglia sent all their (non-tainted, climategate was overblown by the deniers over nothing) data, which the UN has used to “educate” the masses with. Any other scientists with different opinions are crackpots or non environmental scientists, with no skin in the game, and no grants relying on the perfect IPCC data. Hell, these bastards dont even get paid when they publish their erroneous theories.
Just forget having an opinion (unless its the same as theirs). We are not to be individual thinkers. A collective brain, on the collective farm, on this collective earth. Everything is put into the pot, and given back out equally. Once you except this, and the facts (not theories, but facts) that the UN wants us to believe, you will be loved. The global tax to help the poor will make us all feel sooooo good!
http://www.wtam.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104707&article=9710408
rosehips on February 03 at 1:40 p.m.
too funny @gmorton. Did you research the study you cited? These are exactly the scientists I speak of. The Center for Indoor Air Research is a think tank funded by the tobacco industry. Or they were. I guess they gave up the ghost as they are now defunct. How credible do you really think the Enstrom/Kabat study is?
“In May 2003, the British Medical Journal published a study by James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat that claims to find only a weak association between secondhand smoke exposure and heart disease and lung cancer.
The study was funded by the now-defunct Center for Indoor Air Research, which was created by several tobacco companies for the stated purpose of perpetuating the idea that there is a controversy about the dangers of secondhand smoke.”
from http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=90
rosehips on February 03 at 1:41 p.m.
“Maybe because we’d rather “cite” studies. I just love people who attempt to look down their noses at those disagreeing with their position while misspelling 4-letter words. OOPS!”
lol, I feel the same about people who mock others’ spelling or grammar.
rosehips on February 03 at 1:45 p.m.
force vector said: “rosehips - Something about the tone of your question sounds both disrespectful, and submissive.”
Sorry if I sounded disrespectful. I am that way sometime online, but not in real life, usually. Unless I get outraged.
I would not describe my comments as submissive. Dismissive, yes. never submissive. :0
force_vector on February 03 at 2:52 p.m.
Cute, rosehips. I’ll make sure to avoid commenting from my phone from now on so as to avoid auto-corrections that are dismissive of the appropriate time to submissively avoid correcting at all.
samvimes on February 03 at 3:09 p.m.
liberal and rosehips, your responses to my comment on spelling is just about what I expected. It seems the single “victim class” that don’t celebrate their plight are those who are the victims of our dismal educational system. No one will object to an effort to improve your spelling and grammar. No one is going to applaud an attempted defense of ignorance, whether in the fields of language or science.
gmorton on February 03 at 5:35 p.m.
rosehips wrote,
“How credible do you really think the Enstrom/Kabat study is?”
I found no obvious problems with the study. It is here:
http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/355601/field_highwire_article_pdf/0.pdf
The “credibility” of a study turns on its methodology, not its funding source. If you are dismissing it based on its funding source you are indulging in a fallacious form of argument. Please learn what *ad hominem* is.
Here”s another which reached essentially the same conclusion:
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/1440.full.pdf
And a critique of the EPA’s infamous report:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
misjustice on February 03 at 7:33 p.m.
Congratulations on your award Mr. Powers!
; )
rosehips on February 03 at 9:08 p.m.
And forgive me for forgetting to congratulate Julian Powers. I was just visiting with a friend of mine who knows you. I told him about this thread, haha.
gmorton, can you really defend a report funded by a tobacco think tank that finds little link to second hand smoke anything but a bunch of crap?
The evidence about second-hand smoke is pretty clear but the ill attempt to discredit the evidence still seems to linger. If only in your mind. lol
rosehips on February 03 at 9:10 p.m.
and sam, reread my comment. I was defending you. ;)
gmorton on February 03 at 9:40 p.m.
rosehips wrote,
“gmorton, can you really defend a report funded by a tobacco think tank that finds little link to second hand smoke anything but a bunch of crap?”
Apparently my suggestion re: *ad hominem* arguments flew right over your head.
force_vector on February 03 at 10:07 p.m.
How did this thread come to be about tobacco? Exactly why science discussions should stay within the scientific community until some sense of reasonable understanding has been established. Clearly, we’re not there yet.
misjustice on February 03 at 10:34 p.m.
Well, FV, no disrespect intended but I disagree about science discussions staying within the scientific community.
Mr. Powers’ life work was meant to get us all a talkin’ and thinkin’… and though this thread may have strayed, at least we are a talkin’… and some are thinkin’. I think…
; )
force_vector on February 03 at 11:50 p.m.
MisJ - Talkin’ and thinkin’ is great. Let’s think and then talk about the potential influences of valence states with respect to the potential influence of each state on the force strength of the gravity field induced by the lack of potential for the probability for the presence of mass. Perhaps we can also discuss (talk and think, as it were) about the potential for a relativistic connection between said quantum gravity influence and time.
No?
But we’re just talkin and thinkin.
My point is that when it comes to topics requiring a high degree of understanding with respect to multiple disciplines only gained through specialized education and experience in those disciplines, those lacking can think and talk about it all they want. But it doesn’t mean a whole lot…except to them.
gotcha on February 04 at 4:04 a.m.
It is truly amazing to see how many sheepel the left has raised.
Diana on February 04 at 7:38 a.m.
Shorter gotcha: Moo…moo…mooo.