Mary Agnes Chase (1869-1963)
Smithsonian’s Custodian in Charge of the Herbarium at the U.S. National Museum. She was not only an eminent expert on grasses but also a suffragette. In fact, her political activities resulted in arrests, prison time and a hunger strike that ended when she was force-fed. Later, when faced with formidable professional opposition to her request to go on expedition to Panama, she raised her own funds and traveled alone. Throughout her career she was energetic and undaunted by political and professional chauvinism in pursuit of her passion for botany and at the age of 93 published a three volume index of U.S. grasses, over 80,000 species
United Women of Science say: “Science is foundational in a progressive society, fuels innovation, and touches the lives of every person on this planet. The anti-knowledge and anti-science sentiments expressed repeatedly during the U.S. presidential election threaten the very foundations of our society. Our work as scientists and our values as human beings are under attack. We fear that the scientific progress and momentum in tackling our biggest challenges, including staving off the worst impacts of climate change, will be severely hindered under this next U.S. administration. Our planet cannot afford to lose any time.
In this new era of anti-science and misinformation, we as women scientists re-affirm our commitment to build a more inclusive society and scientific enterprise. We will take action in our own communities and we will work towards an inclusive society, where science and knowledge can be embraced and everyone has the opportunity to reach their potential.”
Unless we have a planet that functions, none of us will have a future. 2016 is the hottest year on record. Trees are dying. Species are becoming extinct. The North Pole is over 36 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than average, a new report found. In fact, the entire Arctic region, the report said, is about 13 degrees warmer than usual. At the same time, the extent of sea ice in the Arctic is at a record low beating the all-time low seen in 2012. The analysis comes from Sean Birkel, a research assistant professor at the University of Maine’s Climate Change Institute.
The Paris agreement was a stunning moment in human cooperation — forging alliances with China and other big polluters that helped bring decades of contentious discussions to a successful conclusion in Paris last year. The Paris agreement aims to limit the global temperature rise this century to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, and as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible. Those are the thresholds at which scientists believe many of the most damaging effects of climate change can be averted.
By the time the talks concluded, 111 countries accounting for three-quarters of the world’s emissions had ratified the deal, which took effect days before the meeting began. Several of them — including Germany, Canada and Mexico — joined the U.S. in presenting strategies for how their countries can dramatically reduce emissions by 2050. Vowing to do their part, representatives from more than 45 of the world’s poorest countries pledged to meet all of their energy production needs through renewable sources as rapidly as possible.
With the your threat to withdraw the United States from the accord some diplomats turned from talking of rising seas and climbing temperatures toward how to punish the United States if you follow through, with a carbon-pollution tax on imports of American-made goods. “A carbon tariff against the United States is an option for us,” Rodolfo Lacy Tamayo, Mexico’s under secretary for environmental policy and planning, said in an interview here. He added, “We will apply any kind of policy necessary to defend the quality of life for our people, to protect our environment and to protect our industries.”
The United States cannot afford to engage in a world-wide carbon tarif war where we are one against all other nations. This may be the first time in history that our country is faced with unified international sanctions because of “red meat” rhetoric that flies in the face of science. These policies will not support the “economic nationalism” that you claim to represent. These policies will not re-invigorate an American middle class. The standing of our country in the world will not be improved. Backing out of this accord will likely result in China having primary influence and leadership positions in the World.
You are no longer standing before a rowdy crowd of supporters that want obsolete manufacturing jobs back or think of governing as a WWF sport. You are now facing nations that have the ability to leave the United States behind.
Beth Klein 