Friday, April 30, 2010

This Story Will Put Wind in Your Sails

Creating a sustainable society will require many things. At the broadest level it will require us to stop doing those things that are killing us, and begin doing those things that will allow us to prosper for generation after generation. The burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming and we need to shift away from these technologies urgently. What does that mean?

Means never building another coal plant starting today.

Means telling your elected officials to end the dozens of tax breaks and incentives still offered to the oil industry. Why are tax payers subsidizing the wealthiest corporations in the world?

Means stop driving cars. Means bringing public transportation to towns and cities all across the country. Means changing zoning laws so we can integrate our communities so we can walk or bike to school, to work, to the store, or wherever we need to go.

Means investing in renewable energy. Tax incentives for people like you and me to add solar panels to our homes. Tax breaks to encourage investors to expand the wind energy industry

A sustainable society will be powered on solar and wind and some geothermal.Sound crazy? Did you know that if we built a solar farm in Nevada that was 100 miles by 100 miles it would create enough electricity to power the entire country? You math types will think wow, but that is 10,000 square miles, that is huge. It is big, but it would only cover about 10% of the surface area of Nevada (really big desert out there). Now, no one is seriously proposing such a massive farm but it does give you a sense of perspective. Actually, if we tapped into all the solar potential found in our country, we could produce 7X all the amount of electricity we use now. Same for wind power. If we tapped into all the reasonable sites, we could produce another 7X all the power we currently use.

All those farms would be in the United States, creating American jobs. One windmill turbine has 6,000 parts. All those parts could be made in America....think of how many manufacturing jobs that would create. At the moment most of those parts are made elsewhere. Why?

I have only scratched the tip of a huge energy iceberg of options that are out there. And what are we doing as a country about this. Virtually nothing. Big oil has too much power and keeps our leaders in grid lock.

We need to transform our entire energy infrastructure. We need to change our lives and the demands we place on the planet. We need imagination and ingenuity. Our country has a wealth of both, but at the moment much of it seems to be wildly misplaced in developing credit default swaps and other soul and earth destroying ventures.

Check out the article below. It is about the potential offered by wind energy, well only in the smallest of ways. But more importantly it is a story about what we can achieve when we dare to dream and see our world in a different way. About what can happen when we simply get on with it, not aware that what we are attempting is impossible. It is one of the most inspirational stories I have read in a long time. A great way to start the weekend...


William Kamkwamba up one of his windmills
William Kamkwamba educated himself in his local library

By Jude Sheerin
BBC News
The extraordinary true story of a Malawian teenager who transformed his village by building electric windmills out of junk is the subject of a new book, The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind.
Self-taught William Kamkwamba has been feted by climate change campaigners like Al Gore and business leaders the world over.
His against-all-odds achievements are all the more remarkable considering he was forced to quit school aged 14 because his family could no longer afford the $80-a-year (£50) fees.
When he returned to his parents' small plot of farmland in the central Malawian village of Masitala, his future seemed limited.
But this was not another tale of African potential thwarted by poverty.
Defence against hunger
The teenager had a dream of bringing electricity and running water to his village.
William Kamkwamba and one of his windmills

Many, including my mother, thought I was going crazy - people thought I was smoking marijuana
William Kamkwamba
And he was not prepared to wait for politicians or aid groups to do it for him.
The need for action was even greater in 2002 following one of Malawi's worst droughts, which killed thousands of people and left his family on the brink of starvation.
Unable to attend school, he kept up his education by using a local library.
Fascinated by science, his life changed one day when he picked up a tattered textbook and saw a picture of a windmill.
Mr Kamkwamba told the BBC News website: "I was very interested when I saw the windmill could make electricity and pump water.
"I thought: 'That could be a defence against hunger. Maybe I should build one for myself'."
When not helping his family farm maize, he plugged away at his prototype, working by the light of a paraffin lamp in the evenings.
But his ingenious project met blank looks in his community of about 200 people.
"Many, including my mother, thought I was going crazy," he recalls. "They had never seen a windmill before."
Shocks
Neighbours were further perplexed at the youngster spending so much time scouring rubbish tips.
Al Gore
William Kamkwamba's achievements with wind energy show what one person, with an inspired idea, can do to tackle the crisis we face
Al Gore
"People thought I was smoking marijuana," he said. "So I told them I was only making something for juju [magic].' Then they said: 'Ah, I see.'"
Mr Kamkwamba, who is now 22 years old, knocked together a turbine from spare bicycle parts, a tractor fan blade and an old shock absorber, and fashioned blades from plastic pipes, flattened by being held over a fire.
"I got a few electric shocks climbing that [windmill]," says Mr Kamkwamba, ruefully recalling his months of painstaking work.
The finished product - a 5-m (16-ft) tall blue-gum-tree wood tower, swaying in the breeze over Masitala - seemed little more than a quixotic tinkerer's folly.
But his neighbours' mirth turned to amazement when Mr Kamkwamba scrambled up the windmill and hooked a car light bulb to the turbine.
As the blades began to spin in the breeze, the bulb flickered to life and a crowd of astonished onlookers went wild.
Soon the whiz kid's 12-watt wonder was pumping power into his family's mud brick compound.
'Electric wind'
Out went the paraffin lanterns and in came light bulbs and a circuit breaker, made from nails and magnets off an old stereo speaker, and a light switch cobbled together from bicycle spokes and flip-flop rubber.
Before long, locals were queuing up to charge their mobile phones.
WINDS OF CHANGE
2002: Drought strikes; he leaves school; builds 5m windmill
2006: Daily Times writes article on him; he builds a 12m windmill
2007: Brings solar power to his village and installs solar pump
Mid-2008: Builds Green Machine windmill, pumping well water
Sep 2008: Attends inaugural African Leadership Academy class
Mid-2009: Builds replica of original 5m windmill
Mr Kamkwamba's story was sent hurtling through the blogosphere when a reporter from the Daily Times newspaper in Blantyre wrote an article about him in November 2006.
Meanwhile, he installed a solar-powered mechanical pump, donated by well-wishers, above a borehole, adding water storage tanks and bringing the first potable water source to the entire region around his village.
He upgraded his original windmill to 48-volts and anchored it in concrete after its wooden base was chewed away by termites.
Then he built a new windmill, dubbed the Green Machine, which turned a water pump to irrigate his family's field.
Before long, visitors were traipsing from miles around to gawp at the boy prodigy's magetsi a mphepo - "electric wind".
As the fame of his renewable energy projects grew, he was invited in mid-2007 to the prestigious Technology Entertainment Design conference in Arusha, Tanzania.
Cheetah generation
He recalls his excitement using a computer for the first time at the event.
"I had never seen the internet, it was amazing," he says. "I Googled about windmills and found so much information."
Onstage, the native Chichewa speaker recounted his story in halting English, moving hard-bitten venture capitalists and receiving a standing ovation.
Bryan Mealer (left) with William Kamkwamba
William Kamkwamba and Bryan Mealer (left) spent a year writing the book
A glowing front-page portrait of him followed in the Wall Street Journal.
He is now on a scholarship at the elite African Leadership Academy in Johannesburg, South Africa.
Mr Kamkwamba - who has been flown to conferences around the globe to recount his life-story - has the world at his feet, but is determined to return home after his studies.
The home-grown hero aims to finish bringing power, not just to the rest of his village, but to all Malawians, only 2% of whom have electricity.
"I want to help my country and apply the knowledge I've learned," he says. "I feel there's lots of work to be done."
Former Associated Press news agency reporter Bryan Mealer had been reporting on conflict across Africa for five years when he heard Mr Kamkwamba's story.
The incredible tale was the kind of positive story Mealer, from New York, had long hoped to cover.
The author spent a year with Mr Kamkwamba writing The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind, which has just been published in the US.
Mealer says Mr Kamkwamba represents Africa's new "cheetah generation", young people, energetic and technology-hungry, who are taking control of their own destiny.
"Spending a year with William writing this book reminded me why I fell in love with Africa in the first place," says Mr Mealer, 34.
"It's the kind of tale that resonates with every human being and reminds us of our own potential."
Can it be long before the film rights to the triumph-over-adversity story are snapped up, and William Kamkwamba, the boy who dared to dream, finds himself on the big screen?

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Why Al Gore Doesn't Matter

From time to time I meet someone who tells me that they don’t believe in climate change. Usually, about 70% of the time, within the next 2 to 3 sentences after making this proclamation, said person will argue that it is all a conspiracy orchestrated by Al Gore. He might add that the issue is just something made up by Al Gore so he and a few scientists can make a lot of money, etc.  Some have heard a rumor that he has this really big house with a huge energy bill so that just proves that he is a hypocrite so global warming must be a lie.

Al Gore?  Who the hell cares what Al Gore has to say?  What do climate scientists say about all this?  Deniers argue that there is no clear scientific consensus on the topic.  They claim that the scientific community is widely split and many doubts remain.  This is beyond ludicrous.  Let me give you a visual representation of how the camps are divided.

 A photo taken at a climate scientists' recent flag football game.  ;-)

Ok, the photo is a joke but the message is accurate -- the vast, vast majority of the science community accepts that climate change is happening and that it is caused by humans.  This is may be shocking to some, especially if you only occasionally follow the issue or catch sound bites from Fox News or if you only catch the headlines from articles and columns from the major newspapers.  Yes, the media has done a terrible job of explaining the story.  And it turns out, not surprisingly, that scientists are poor communicators.  (I will deal with that issue at a later time.)

So, who exactly is saying that climate change is real?  And when did they start saying it?  Is it just a couple of hacks that Al Gore found somewhere?


The Experts
Scientists around the world started to notice the effects of climate change in the 1980s.  In response the United Nations (at the request of the United States and other concerned countries) created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to look into the issue.  The IPCC is made up of the top climate scientists from around the world.  The IPCC does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data.  So what does it do?  Every few years they produce an assessment report based on a review of the latest technical data and peer-reviewed published reports related to climate science.  The purpose of the assessment report is to offer guidance to policy makers (e.g. world leaders and politicians).  Four reports have been produced to date: 1990, 1992, 2001, and 2007.

The IPCC Assessment Report represents THE official view of the scientific community on climate change.  Is this document credible?  Let’s look at the 2007 report.  The document was written after 6 years of work involving 130 countries, 450 lead authors and 800 contributing authors.  The validity of each topic section was checked, critiqued, and verified by the leading experts for that field.  The document was reviewed by 2,500 expert reviewers.  I am not sure if you fully appreciate how unbelievably rigorous this review process is. 

A bit of background.  How does science move forward?  Well, normally a scientist does research and then s/he submits the findings to a peer-review journal like the Lancet (health related) or Science, or Nature, etc.  The journal would then search out 1 to 3 experts in that field and ask them to review the study for scientific validity.  If the reviewers feel the methodology and calculations look fine, the study is accepted by the journal for publication.

The IPCC report is reviewed, and re-reviewed by THOUSANDS of the very best scientists of the world.  And the entire submission process is completely transparent – all submissions to the IPCC, all comments, and all responses to comments are available for anyone to review.

Hang on, we are not done yet.  The IPCC then submits the report to the world’s governments to review.  Each country has the right to critique the document and make edits.  The main recommendations and language are NEGOTIATED with the world’s political leaders.  The final document is then submitted to the United Nations where each country has the option to sign on in support of the findings.  If a country does not agree, they simply don’t sign.

The latest report has declared:
  1. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
  2. Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Wow.  For science-speak this is like screaming from the roof-top.  Try getting a scientist to say anything is “unequivocal.”  And as defined in the report, the term “very likely” indicates a >90% probability.  The scientists are saying that they are more than 90% sure global warming is happening and it is caused by humans. 

So who has signed on in support of the IPCC findings?
  1. EVERY scientist who participated in producing the document has signed on.  Signature does not mean that a scientist necessarily agrees with every statement in the report but that s/he agrees that the content is fair and credible.
  2. EVERY country in the world, including the United States has signed on in support of the document.  Yes, George Bush signed his support for the 2007 report.
Anybody Else?
Has anyone else signed on in support of the findings of the IPCC report?  In the United States the National Academy of Sciences has said:
 “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue"

Should we listen to the Academy?  It is home to about 2,100 of America’s top scientists with close to 200 of them having won Nobel Prizes for their work. Only the finest scientists our country produces are elected to join this body and membership is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded to a scientist or engineer.  Don't sound like hacks to me.

I got more.

In 2008 the National Academies of 13 countries (United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Canada, China, Germany, France, Italy, Brazil, Japan, India, South Africa, and Mexico). put out this statement:
 “….climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.”

So, the most prestigious scientific bodies, including most of the top scientific minds on our planet, from some of the most advanced societies in the world support the findings of the IPCC.

Oh, I’m not done

These organizations have signed on in support of the IPCC findings:

U.S. Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Energy
National Institutes of Health
United States Department of State
United States Department of Transportation
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution
International Arctic Science Committee
Arctic Council
African Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Académie des Sciences, France
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
Indian National Science Academy
Science Council of Japan
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Academy of Science of South Africa
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Science
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society of Agronomy
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Federation of American Scientists
Geological Society of America
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society of American Foresters
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Engineers Australia
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of Australia
British Antarctic Survey
Institute of Biology, UK
Royal Meteorological Society, UK
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization

Damn, that Al Gore guy is goooooood. 

But doesn’t it seem like there are a lot of people saying that climate change is not happening or that the science is far from done.  Yes, it does seem that way.  I will write on this later but for now think of it this way.

Remember when everyone thought smoking was honky dory?  Then a few scientists started producing evidence that smoking was linked to lung cancer.  The tobacco industry created a research consortium called the U.S. Tobacco Institute and within a few years some scientists and “experts” appeared with studies showing that there was no credible data linking smoking to cancer.  The tobacco industry bought off scientists, hired PR firms to spread disinformation, and lobbied heavily with government officials.  The whole goal of the campaign was to create doubt in the public mind.  We all know how it turned out.  The body of evidence became overwhelming and the tactics and fraud of Big Tobacco were revealed to the public.  We now all accept as common knowledge that smoking can kill you.

That is our reality now.  The illusion of doubt around climate change is simply the output of a well-funded campaign orchestrated by the fossil-fuel industry (because it threatens their profits) and right-wing political parties (because the solutions threaten their world view). 

The evidence however is overwhelming, and climate change can kill you.  We need action now.

Learn more here.

Change your life to reduce emissions that cause climate change.

Demand political action now.  Call your elected official and tell them you want action.

Want to learn more?

Here is a report that shows how Exxon Mobil has funded over 40 organizations to spread disinformation on climate change.

whew...i am exhausted....gotta write something shorter tomorrow

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

To Dire to Inspire?

"The American Dream - The World's Nightmare" is a presentation I that conduct at high schools, colleges, universities, churches and at just about any venue where people are willing to come to hear me speak.  (If you would like to have me come speak before your group, or want to learn more about this presentation email me at americandreamworldsnightmare@gmail.com )

Before one presentation was about to begin someone asked me if the talk was going to be all “doom and gloom.”  I understand the question.   I get it.  Really.  There is already so much bad news in the world why would someone want to hear my presentation or read these missives?

Many of the postings on this blog, especially in the early days and weeks, may seem to fall into this category.  Lot's of dire predictions and depressing facts.  Doesn’t seem like a recipe for success does it? (or in this case, wide readership).

And of course, if you speak to anyone who knows anything about teaching, or about social change, or about behavior modification, they will tell you that the way to get someone to take action or change a behavior in their life is to inspire them.  Create a vision of a reality that will pull them in that direction.  Fear rarely works as a motivation force.

Martin Luther King inspired a generation with his "I Have A Dream" speech.  He helped change a nation by enabling people to imagine what America could look like; by pushing the young and old alike to envision what the country could achieve; and by helping people of all walks of life to grasp how America could fulfill its founding essence and promise if it truly enfranchised people of color as equal citizens.   He helped people understand how acknowledging and codifying the rights of African Americans would, in fact, enable us all to be more truly human.

Martin Luther could leap right into the dream part because blacks in America were already living the nightmare -- everyday they lived the reality of being a second class citizen.  No need to flesh that part out.

My challenge is quite different.  We are all living the dream while few seem to grasp the full horror of the nightmare that awaits us once awakened.  If I leap into the dream part now, and offer a cascade of "radical" ideas and "solutions" before you buy into the fact there is a problem, before you really begin to grasp the depth of the problem before us, you will simply find this to be the ravings of a mad man.  You will not find the courage to consider the changes we need unless you fully begin to grasp the nightmare head.

I need some time to paint the landscape, to draw the connections and peel away the façade.  Time to explore the facts, figures, and predictions that rarely see the light of day.  But for me it is not about doom and gloom. 

Just the opposite, actually.

These insights are essential to allow the birth of a sustainable dream.  They hold the potential for the first step along a path with no ending.  We can only begin to create a new path by first understanding the folly, the insanity, the wretched horror of what awaits us at the end of our current path. 

Then, THEN, my friends, we can delve into the nuts and bolts, the wild visions and bold proclamations.  There are solutions for every problem, issue, or predicament that I will present.  There are glorious opportunities for human prosperity, and for creating a world where we can thrive in ways only pondered in our wildest dreams.  

Stay tuned, the best is yet to come....if we can just wake up in time.

Note:  This posting was inspired by a much shorter, but not dissimilar discussion found in James Gustave Speth's book "The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability."

Monday, April 26, 2010

Houston, We Have A Problem....

Few realize it, but most of us in America are amongst the wealthiest people who have ever inhabited the planet. Yep, even you and me. We live far, far better than the Pharaohs of Egypt or the Emperors of the Roman Empire. We live more comfortably, we are healthier, and we live longer than any King of Kings who came before us. Since the industrial revolution many millions of people have been lifted out of crushing poverty and live reasonably easy lives. Does anyone sense a “but” coming soon?.....
The “but” is that this material wealth has exacted a staggering toll on the environment. The way we raise our food, the technology we use to extract resources, and the processes we use to create products are profoundly destructive. And now, the sheer scale of these processes are overwhelming the planet’s life support systems that keep us, well, alive. We are a victim of our own success.
Let’s look at a few flashing lights to make it more real.
Food Production:
We all need food to survive and we need soil to grow that food.
In 1900 we had 4,000 ton of topsoil/person. In less than 100 years that figure had dropped to about 80 tons of topsoil/person. Each year we are adding about 100 million people to the planet while erosion wipes out about 24 billion tons of topsoil from our farmlands each year.
It takes Nature 100 years to produce 1 inch of topsoil. (An interesting article on this here.)
More people to feed each year, with less topsoil to grow food. Sure, science and technology can help increase productivity, but at some point, basic laws of physics will take over.
Fisheries
Fish and other sea life provide much of the protein for about 1 billion people on the planet. There are 17 major fisheries in the world. We are sucking the life out every one of these fisheries at unsustainable rates. 13 of these fisheries have already either collapsed or are on the brink of collapse. There
are dozens of examples all around the world where fisheries are collapsing. A couple for you:
  1. 40,000 fisherman in Newfoundland, Canada have been out of a job for the last 20 years. They over fished the waters off their coast and the Cod population collapsed. Two decades later the population has not recovered.
  2. In the Chesapeake Bay the oyster catch has dropped from 6 million bushels/year in the 1960s to less tha n 25,000 bushels now. (In the 1800s this yearly haul was 20 million bushels). So in less than 100 years the oyster population was reduced by 99.6%!
  3. Most large predator fish, tuna, marlin, swordfish have been wiped out. Only 10% remain in the oceans now. The tuna population was cut 80% in just the last 15 years.
Water
Five days without fresh water and I am dead. The planet has the same amount of water now that it had a couple of million years ago. It is not making any new water.


In less than 100 years we went from 25,000 cubic meters of water/person to 6,000 cubic meters/person.
Why? Well, we have added about 6 billion people to the planet in the last 200 years. And our m odern farming techniques are very water intensive and few people realize that our factories and industries require tremendous amounts of water to make the goods we use every day.
Everything we need to survive comes from the planet. Clean air to breath. Adequate amounts of food and clean water. Protection from toxins and pollution.
In fact there are 8 global major environmental crises brewing around us:
  1. Climate Change
  2. Deforestation
  3. Land Loss
  4. Loss of Fresh Water
  5. Loss of Marine Fisheries
  6. Toxic Pollutants
  7. Loss of biodiversity
  8. Over fertilization w/nitrogen
I have touched on three of them today and we will visit the others at a later date. The point is, how many of these issues are you aware of? Why don’t we hear more about these issues? These are the issues the media should be discussing. These are the issues our politicians should be working on.
These are the issues our children and grand-children are going to ask us about because these are the megatrends that will have an impact on their lives.
And it is just a hunch, but I think that they are going to be rather difficult and rather angry questions indeed.

Friday, April 23, 2010

How about "ALL MY GOD, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE" - Day?

Here it is only day two on the job and I am already letting someone else pinch hit for me. Below is a posting (from yesterday) from one of my favorite bloggers, Joe Romm who writes Climate Progress, one of the best blogs out there on climate change. I like Joe’s writing style, it is clear and it is in your face. He doesn’t pull any punches. I don’t agree with everything he says but it is always a fun read.
Joe is suggesting that we need to change the name of “Earth Day” (which was Thursday ) because if we don’t deal with climate change, it is the human species that is at risk, not the planet earth. For me, global warming is just a symptom of a much more ominous, much more profound problem. It just turns out that this one symptom is a doozy -- this one side effect of our developmental path could single-handedly knock most of humanity off the map or at least make life very, very unpleasant for a few thousand years.
We are part of the environment. We are not above it. We do not control it (well, not for long). We are not separate from it. What happens to nature, happens to us.
Enjoy Joe’s provocative wit…….
Affection for our planet is misdirected and unrequited. We need to focus on saving ourselves.
April 21, 2010
In 2008, I wrote a piece for Salon about renaming ‘Earth’ Day. It was supposed to be mostly humorous. Or mostly serious. Anyway, the subject of renaming Earth Day seems more relevant than ever because this is the 40th anniversary.
In a 2009 interview last year, our Nobel-prize winning Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, said:
I would say that from here on in, every day has to be Earth Day.
Well, duh! Heck, we have a whole day just for the trees — and we haven’t finished them offyet. So if every day is Earth Day, than April 22 definitely needs a new name. So I’m updating the column, with yet another idea at the end, at least for climate science advocates:
I don’t worry about the earth. I’m pretty certain the earth will survive the worst we can do to it. I’m very certain the earth doesn’t worry about us. I’m not alone. People got more riled up when scientists removed Pluto from the list of planets than they do when scientists warn that our greenhouse gas emissions are poised to turn the earth into a barely habitable planet.
Arguably, concern over the earth is elitist, something people can afford to spend their time on when every other need is met. But elitism is out these days. We need a new way to make people care about the nasty things we’re doing with our cars and power plants. At the very least, we need a new name.
How about Nature Day or Environment Day? Personally, I am not an environmentalist. I don’t think I’m ever going to see the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I wouldn’t drill for oil there. But that’s not out of concern for the caribou but for my daughter and the planet’s next several billion people, who will need to see oil use cut sharply to avoid the worst of climate change.
I used to worry about the polar bear. But then some naturalists told me that once human-caused global warming has completely eliminated their feeding habitat — the polar ice, probably by 2020, possibly sooner — polar bears will just go about the business of coming inland and attacking humans and eating our food and maybe even us. That seems only fair, no?
I am a cat lover, but you can’t really worry about them. Cats are survivors. Remember the movie “Alien”? For better or worse, cats have hitched their future to humans, and while we seem poised to wipe out half the species on the planet, cats will do just fine.
Apparently there are some plankton that thrive on an acidic environment, so it doesn’t look like we’re going to wipe out all life in the ocean, just most of it. Sure, losing Pacific salmon is going to be a bummer, but I eat Pacific salmon several times a week, so I don’t see how I’m in a position to march on the nation’s capital to protest their extinction. I won’t eat farm-raised salmon, though, since my doctor says I get enough antibiotics from the tap water.
If thousands of inedible species can’t adapt to our monomaniacal quest to return every last bit of fossil carbon back into the atmosphere, why should we care? Other species will do just fine, like kudzu, cactus, cockroaches, rats, scorpions, the bark beetle, Anopheles mosquitoes and the malaria parasites they harbor. Who are we to pick favorites?
I didn’t hear any complaining after the dinosaurs and many other species were wiped out when an asteroid hit the earth and made room for mammals and, eventually, us. If God hadn’t wanted us to dominate all living creatures on the earth, he wouldn’t have sent that asteroid in the first place, and he wouldn’t have turned the dead plants and animals into fossil carbon that could power our Industrial Revolution, destroy the climate, and ultimately kill more plants and animals.
All of these phrases create the misleading perception that the cause so many of us are fighting for — sharp cuts in greenhouse gases — is based on the desire to preserve something inhuman or abstract or far away. But I have to say that all the environmentalists I know — and I tend to hang out with the climate crowd — care about stopping global warming because of its impact on humans, even if they aren’t so good at articulating that perspective. I’m with them.
The reason that many environmentalists fight to save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the polar bears is not because they are sure that losing those things would cause the universe to become unhinged, but because they realize that humanity isn’t smart enough to know which things are linchpins for the entire ecosystem and which are not. What is the straw that breaks the camel’s back? The 100th species we wipe out? The 1,000th? For many, the safest and wisest thing to do is to try to avoid the risks entirely.
This is where I part company with many environmentalists. With 6.5 billion people going to 9 billion, much of the environment is unsavable. But if we warm significantly more than 3.5°F from pre-industrial levels — and especially if we warm more than 7°F, as would be all but inevitable if we keep on our current emissions path for much longer — then the environment and climate that made modern human civilization possible will be ruined, probably for hundreds of years (see NOAA stunner: Climate change “largely irreversible for 1000 years,” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe). And that means misery for many if not most of the next 10 to 20 billion people to walk the planet.
So I think the world should be more into conserving the stuff that we can’t live without. In that regard I am a conservative person. Unfortunately, Conservative Day would, I think, draw the wrong crowds.
The problem with Earth Day is it asks us to save too much ground. We need to focus. The two parts of the planet worth fighting to preserve are the soils and the glaciers.
Two years ago, Science magazine published research that “predicted a permanent drought by 2050 throughout the Southwest” — levels of soil aridity comparable to the 1930s Dust Bowl would stretch from Kansas and Oklahoma to California. The Hadley Center, the U.K.’s official center for climate change research, found that “areas affected by severe drought could see a five-fold increase from 8% to 40%.” On our current emissions path, most of the South and Southwest ultimately experience twice as much loss of soil moisture as was seen during the Dust Bowl.
Also, locked away in the frozen soil of the tundra or permafrost is more carbon than the atmosphere contains today (see Tundra, Part 1). On our current path, most of the top 10 feet of the permafrost will be lost this century — so much for being “perma” — and that amplifying carbon-cycle feedback will all but ensure that today’s worst-case scenarios for global warming become the best-case scenarios (see Tundra, Part 2: The point of no return). We must save the tundra. Perhaps it should be small “e” earth Day, which is to say, Soil Day. On the other hand, most of the public enthusiasm in the 1980s for saving the rain forests fizzled, and they are almost as important as the soil, so maybe not Soil Day.
As for glaciers, when they disappear, sea levels rise, perhaps as much as two inches a year by century’s end (see “Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100” and here). If we warm even 3°C from pre-industrial levels, we will return the planet to a time when sea levels were ultimately 100 feet higher (see Science: CO2 levels haven’t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher — “We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm.”). The first five feet of sea level rise, which seems increasingly likely to occur this century on our current emissions path, would displace more than 100 million people. That would be the equivalent of 200 Katrinas. Since my brother lost his home in Katrina, I don’t consider this to be an abstract issue.
Equally important, the inland glaciers provide fresh water sources for more than a billion people. But on our current path, they will be gone by century’s end.
So where is everyone going to live? Hundreds of millions will flee the new deserts, but they can’t go to the coasts; indeed, hundreds of millions of other people will be moving inland. But many of the world’s great rivers will be drying up at the same time, forcing massive conflict among yet another group of hundreds of millions of people. The word rival, after all, comes from “people who share the same river.” Sure, desalination is possible, but that’s expensive and uses a lot of energy, which means we’ll need even more carbon-free power.
Perhaps Earth Day should be Water Day, since the worst global warming impacts are going to be about water — too much in some places, too little in other places, too acidified in the oceans for most life. But even soil and water are themselves only important because they sustain life. We could do Pro-Life Day, but that term is already taken, and again it would probably draw the wrong crowd.
We could call it Homo sapiens Day. Technically, we are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. Isn’t it great being the only species that gets to name all the species, so we can call ourselves “wise” twice! But given how we have been destroying the planet’s livability, I think at the very least we should drop one of the sapiens. And, perhaps provisionally, we should put the other one in quotes, so we are Homo “sapiens,” at least until we see whether we are smart enough to save ourselves from self-destruction.
What the day — indeed, the whole year — should be about is not creating misery upon misery for our children and their children and their children, and on and on for generations (see “Is the global economy a Ponzi scheme?“). Ultimately, stopping climate change is not about preserving the earth or creation but about preserving ourselves. Yes, we can’t preserve ourselves if we don’t preserve a livable climate, and we can’t preserve a livable climate if we don’t preserve the earth. But the focus needs to stay on the health and well-being of billions of humans because, ultimately, humans are the ones who will experience the most prolonged suffering. And if enough people come to see it that way, we have a chance of avoiding the worst.
We have fiddled like Nero for far too long to save the whole earth or all of its species. Now we need a World War II scale effort just to cut our losses and save what matters most. So let’s call it Triage Day. And if worse comes to worst — yes, if worse comes to worst — at least future generations won’t have to change the name again.
As a penultimate thought, I suspect that many environmentalists and climate science advocates will have their own, private name: “I told you so” Day. Not as a universal as “Triage Day,” I admit, but it has a Cassandra-like catchiness, no?
Finally, perhaps we should call it “science day.” We don’t have a day dedicated to celebrating science, and don’t we deserve one whole day free from the non-stop disinformation of the anti-science crowd?
As always, I’m open to better ideas….

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Why this blog?

With this blog I will attempt to contribute, in my own little way, towards promoting a sustainable society in the US. In this space I will at times offer my own thoughts on how we can create a society that can meet our current needs without sacrificing the quality of life for future generations and other life forms. Other times I will simply share selected insights, data, or analysis from authors, columnists, or from just about anyone I can find with good ideas on all things sustainable.

Why is this even necessary?
The reality is that humanity is hurtling toward disaster as the scale of human society begins to overwhelm the planet’s life support systems. We have almost 7 billion people on the planet who increasingly are living like Americans. More and more societies are following in America’s developmental footpath which is based on exponential growth and consumerism. Exponential growth of this kind on a finite planet is simply not possible. I am motivated to try and get this information out there since these megatrends, the issues that will impact our lives, and certainly the lives of this generation’s children and grandchildren simply are not talked about in the mainstream media, are rarely broached by teachers, nor are they highlighted by our elected officials.

This blog is not all about gloom and doom. It is rather about becoming aware of the choices we make every day and their consequences. Consequences that most of us have managed to ignore until recently. It is about realizing that we are on a certain path and the consequences of that path. It is about realizing that there is in fact an alternative path.

We can create a future that many of us only currently dare consider in our wildest dreams. Imagine a society where everyone has access to a good education and health care. Imagine a society where everyone works at a job that pays a livable wage. Imagine a place where each of us has the essentials for a comfortable life while having ample time to spend with family and friends and time to spend in our community. Imagine a place where we have the time to focus on developing our minds, our spirituality, or our emotional well being. Imagine a place where people are valued for who they are, for what they contribute to building our community rather than for what they have. Imagine a place where nature and other life forms flourish and we have the time and space to be part of nature.

Sound ludicrous? It is – at least given the world we have now, the world that we created. But we can create a far different world. And in fact, we have no choice but to profoundly change our world if we want to survive as a species. In this blog I will attempt to offer the facts, sometimes very harsh facts, about the damage we are doing to ourselves, our society, and to our planet. Other times I will provide examples of the awe inspiring efforts and successes of sustainability pioneers all around the world as they offer real world examples of another, better way.

How did I get interested in this topic?

At an early age I was struck by the fact that it seemed that those of us living in the United States had won some “cosmic lottery.” We got to live incredibly well while much of the world didn’t. After college I joined the Peace Corps (Gabon, 88-90) to find out for myself how most of the world lived to try and understand it all a bit better. From this experience I got the “international bug” and lived overseas for the next 17 working in international relief and development in Africa. Many of the models for development we used were based on the United States and Western Europe, and intuitively I sensed that these societies were not sustainable. This nagging sense of doubt is what led me to strike out on a life-long journey of reading and researching issues around environmental science, energy science, climate science, economics, physics, consumerism, and other topics on sustainability. While I loved living overseas, and working to support vulnerable communities in their efforts to develop, I knew that I was only working on a subset of the larger problem. The models were flawed. So, in 2007 I returned to the US to try and make my contribution at moving the US toward becoming a truly sustainable society. This blog is part of that effort.

I offer this blog with the utmost humility. Virtually everything I know about sustainability is based on the readings from those with minds far superior to mine.

Who is this blog for?
This blog is not just for tree huggers. If you live on planet earth, these are issues that you will want to know about. This blog is not about saving polar bears, though that would be nice. This is about saving ourselves. If you are worried about the quality of life the world will be able to offer your children or grandchildren then stay tuned. Care about your health? Interested in living a life that is not so chaotic and stress filled? Have a nagging sense there could or should be much more to life?

Give it a read. Try it for awhile. See if it resonates. If yes, embrace it, share it widely and do something about it. If not, well, send me your comments and let me know why. I love a healthy debate.