Pedantic Political Ponderings: North Carolina

Showing posts with label North Carolina. Show all posts

04 June 2012

FollowUp 12: Republican Denial of Climate Change

Cape Hatteras lighthouse being moved inland due to rising sea levels, 2000.

One of the long anticipated results of climate change is change in sea level. This is understood by scientists and discussed at the website of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Sea level is rising along most of the U.S. coast, and around the world. In the last century, sea level rose 5 to 6 inches more than the global average along the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, because coastal lands there are subsiding.

Higher temperatures are expected to further raise sea level by expanding ocean water, melting mountain glaciers and small ice caps, and causing portions of Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets to melt. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the global average sea level will rise between 0.6 and 2 feet (0.18 to 0.59 meters) in the next century (IPCC, 2007).

The range reflects uncertainty about global temperature projections and how rapidly ice sheets will melt or slide into the ocean in response to the warmer temperatures. Furthermore, some processes affecting sea level have long (centuries and longer) time-scales, so that current sea level change is also related to past climate change, and some relevant processes are not determined solely by climate. Climate models, satellite data and hydrographic observations demonstrate that sea level is not rising uniformly around the world. Depending on the region, sea level has risen several times the global mean rise, or has actually fallen (IPCC, 2007). While current model projections indicate substantial variability in future sea level rise at regional and local scales, the IPCC has concluded that the impacts are “virtually certain to be overwhelmingly negative” (IPCC, 2007).

Rising sea levels inundate wetlands and other low-lying lands, erode beaches, intensify flooding, and increase the salinity of rivers, bays, and groundwater tables. Some of these effects may be further compounded by other effects of a changing climate. Additionally, measures that people take to protect private property from rising sea level may have adverse effects on the environment and on public uses of beaches and waterways. Some property owners and state and local governments are already starting to take measures to prepare for the consequences of rising sea level.

Among those Mid-Atlantic states that are expected to be most affected is North Carolina. But, the House of the North Carolina General Assembly has passed HB 819, legislation that is now under consideration by their Senate, to ban consideration of science in planning for sea level rise. Here is the germane section of that legislation:

"§ 113A-107.1. Sea-level policy restrictions; calculation of rate of sea-level rise.
(a) No State agency, board, commission, institution, or other public entity thereof shall adopt any rule, policy, or planning guideline addressing sea-level rise, unless authorized to do so under this Article.
(b) No county, municipality, or other local public body shall adopt any rule, ordinance, policy, or planning guideline addressing sea-level rise, unless it is a coastal-area county or is located within a coastal-area county.
(c) No rule, ordinance, policy, or planning guideline that defines the rate of sea-level rise shall be adopted except as provided by this section.
(d) The General Assembly does not intend to mandate the development of sea-level rise policy or rates of sea-level rise. If, however, the Coastal Resources Commission decides to develop rates of sea-level rise, the Commission may do so, but only by instructing the Division of Coastal Management to calculate the rates.
(e) The Division of Coastal Management shall be the only State agency authorized to develop rates of sea-level rise and shall do so only at the request of the Commission. These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated linearly to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise. Rates of sea-level rise shall not be one rate for the entire coast but, rather, the Division shall consider separately oceanfront and estuarine shorelines. For oceanfront shorelines, the Division shall use no fewer than the four regions defined in the April 2011 report entitled "North Carolina Beach and Inlet Management Plan" published by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The oceanfront regions are: Region 1 (Brunswick County), Region 2 (New Hanover, Pender, and Onslow Counties and a portion of Carteret County), Region 3 (a portion of Carteret County and Hyde County), and Region 4 (Dare and Currituck Counties). For estuarine shorelines, the Division shall consider no fewer than two separate regions defined as those north of Cape Lookout and those south of Cape Lookout.
(f) Any State agency, board, commission, institution, or other public entity thereof and any county, municipality, or other local public body that develops a policy addressing sea-level rise that includes a rate of sea-level rise shall use only the rates of sea-level rise developed by the Division of Coastal Management as approved by the Commission. If the Commission has not approved a sea-level rise rate, then the sea-level rise policy shall not use a rate of sea-level rise.
(g) If the Commission chooses to adopt rates of sea-level rise for the coastal area as developed by the Division, all rates shall be adopted as rules that are subject to Chapter 150B of the General Statutes."

I have enlarged and emboldened the sentence which effectively states that modern scientific models may not be considered. Discussion of this on the blogs at Scientific American is appropriate titled, NC Considers Making Sea Level Rise Illegal. Perhaps we should get legislation going to outlaw ignorance....

1 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
10 October 2011, FollowUp 1.
11 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
17 October 2011, FollowUp 3.
21 October 2011, FollowUp 4.
27 October 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 6.
29 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
15 February 2012, FollowUp 8.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 March 2012, FollowUp 10.
11 March 2012, FollowUp 11.

14 May 2012

Praise: Audra McDonald on Obama and Marriage Equality

While the hyperbole of "superhero" is at first hear a bit extreme, Ms. McDonald may be entirely accurate. If President Obama's words stop a teen in North Carolina from committing suicide, he is a superhero. Saving a life is what heroes do. Thank you, Ms. McDonald. Your prescience may also be saving lives.

Thank you, Freedom to Marry, for sharing this video.

07 May 2012

7 May 2012: Marriage News Watch

30 April 2012

30 April 2012: Marriage News Watch

23 April 2012

23 April 2012: Marriage News Watch

02 April 2012

2 April 2012: Marriage News Watch

27 March 2012

26 March 2012: Marriage News Watch

19 March 2012

19 March 2012: Marriage News Watch

30 January 2012

30 January 2012: Marriage News Watch

27 December 2011

Praise: North Carolina Psychological Association On DOMA

In September the North Carolina legislature voted to place a referendum on the May 2012 ballot that would add a ban on same sex marriage to the North Carolina constitution. State Senator Forrester explained that he sponsored the amendment because he believes that gays die twenty years earlier than straights (which is not true) and was unable to explain how same sex marriage would harm opposite sex marriage.

There is a major religious push to pass this amendment, led by North Carolina evangelicals. Not all religious organizations agree and the Unitarian Universalists have come out against the proposed amendment. In mid-Spetember, the North Carolina Psychological Association (NCPA) took their stand against the amendment. Here is the list of NCPA reasons.

1. There is no empirical evidence that supports the denial of marriage rights to people in same-sex relationships.

A person’s sexual orientation defines the universe of persons with whom he or she is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic and intimate relationships that, for many individuals, comprise an essential component of personal identity (D’Augelli, 2000; Gonsiorek & Weinrich, 1991; Herek, 2001, 2006; Peplau & Garnets, 2000);

Mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships. Such functioning includes the capacity to form healthy and mutually satisfying intimate relationships with another person of the same sex (American Psychiatric Association, 1974; American Psychological Association, 2007; Conger, 1975, National Association of Social Workers, 2003).

Married individuals generally receive social, economic, health, and psychological benefits from their marital status, including, but not limited to, numerous rights and benefits provided by private employers and by state and federal governments (Badgett, 2001; Brown, 2000; Chauncey 2005; Gove, Hughes, & Style, 1983; Gove, Style, & Hughes, 1990; Kiecolt-Glaser, 2001; Murray, 2000; Nock, 1995; Previti & Amato, 2003; Ross, Mirowsky, Goldsteen, 1990; Stack & Eshleman, 1998; White & Booth, 1991; Williams, 2003;

Many gay men and lesbians, like their heterosexual counterparts, desire to form stable, long-lasting, and committed intimate relationships and are successful in doing so (Gates, Badgett, & Ho, 2008; Herek, Norton, Allen, & Sims 2010; Kurdek, 1995, 1998; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007; Simmons & O’Connell, 2003).

Empirical research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners closely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships, and an emerging research literature suggests that legally recognized same-sex relationships may also be similar to heterosexual marriages in these psychological and social aspects (Balsam, Beauchaine, Rothblum, & Solomon, 2008; Kurdek, 2001, 2004, 2005; Mackey, Diemer, & O’Brian, 2000; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007).

Thus, the only reason for according same-sex relationships a different legal status than heterosexual relationships is ultimately the fact that the relationship is homosexual rather than heterosexual. This differentiation based on sexual orientation is an expression of prejudice and leads to stigma.

2. There is empirical evidence that denial of marriage rights to people in same-sex relationships is damaging to their psychological health.

Individuals with a homosexual orientation are often subjected to minority stress, that is, additional stress beyond what is normally experienced by the heterosexual population, as a consequence of stigma, discrimination, and violence (Badgett, 2001; Berrill, 1992; Garnets, Herek, & Levy, 2990; Herek, 2009; Herek, Gillis, Cogan, 1999; Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 1995; 2003; Meyer, Schwartz, & Frost, 2008);

The experience of minority stress may create somewhat higher levels of illness or psychological distress in the sexual minority population, compared to the heterosexual population (Cochran, Sullivan, & Mays, 2003; Dohrenwend, 2000; Herek & Garnets, 2007; Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 1995; 2003);

Emerging evidence suggests that statewide campaigns to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage are a significant source of stress to the lesbian and gay residents of those states and may have negative effects on their psychological well-being (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2010; Rostosky et al., 2009; Russell, 2000);

Research suggests that this denial has pervasive negative effects not only on the members of same-sex couples who seek to be married, but on all homosexual persons, regardless of their relationship status or desire to marry (Badgett, 2009; Herek, 2006; Hull, 2006).

3. There is empirical evidence that opposing denial of marriage rights initiatives has beneficial psychological effects.

Policies supportive of lesbian and gay people’s human rights may have positive effects on their psychological well-being (Blake, Ledsky, Lehman, Goodenow, Sawyer, Hack, 2001; Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006; Hatzenbuehler, Keyes, Hasin, 2009).

4. Psychologists have colleagues and we have clients for whom this issue is relevant and important, and who appreciate representation. From a social justice perspective, significant benefits accrue to all of us when diverse families are legally and socially sanctioned.

Thus, it is resolved that, based on the available empirical evidence, the North Carolina Psychological Association is opposed to the May ballot initiative that would alter the North Carolina Constitution to make marriage between a man and a woman the only legal domestic union recognized in the state. This position will be communicated to NCPA members, and NCPA may be listed with other organizations opposing the amendment, such as Equality NC. NCPA may also seek to make coalitions with other mental health associations and agencies for the purpose of opposing the amendment.

In addition to the in-line citations, there are two additional pages of reference material at the linked pdf. The science is clear and the NCPA letter is based solidly on science. The NCPA serves the well being of the people of North Carolina. Their conclusion, that the proposed "mini-DOMA" should be opposed, is what is best for everyone, gays and straights alike.

Thanks to Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters for the heads up.

Various Direct Links