Three weeks ago I left for France to being my semester abroad, and since then things have been hectic to say the least and internet access sporadic at best. I just spent two weeks in Bordeaux, where their public transportation, the brand-new tram system, is clean enough that grass can grow right on the tracks. It's encouraging, if not a little frustrating, to know that these things are possible in the US and elsewhere too.
Now I'm in Paris, where I'll be until December. I probably won't update (much) for the next few months considering my schedule and the availability of internet access. But check in every now and then, because I really enjoy doing this, and I hope you enjoy reading it too.
I don't have a subscription, so I don't know if this is last week's issue or this one's. But all I know is I was happy to see this - on the cover, no less:
(the footnote reads: "*Or so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change. Inside the denial machine.")
So much of the American media up until this point has treated global warming's existence as a political question - phrasing such as "some scientists believe that...", giving global warming deniers the same screen time as reputable scientists, and so on and so forth. For Newsweek to take the issue out of the arena of political "debate" and depict it as what it is - science under attack - is not only brave journalism, but crucial at this stage in history. One key thing the article mentions again and again is that the "denial machine", as they call it, worked not only to kill climate change bills in congress, but to keep the public skeptical - and it is that skepticism, perhaps even more than the ineptitude of congress itself, is what is preventing action more than anything else at this stage.
Hopefully this will be the one of the first actions taken by the mainstream media to take the global warming discussion out of its politicized, pseudo-scientific bubble of "legitimacy" and "consensus", and place it into actual significant discourse about what needs to be done - the real question we all need to be asking.
Excerpt:
Killing bills in Congress was only one prong of the denial machine's campaign. It also had to keep public opinion from demanding action on greenhouse emissions, and that meant careful management of what federal scientists and officials wrote and said. "If they presented the science honestly, it would have brought public pressure for action," says Rick Piltz, who joined the federal Climate Science Program in 1995. By appointing former coal and oil lobbyists to key jobs overseeing climate policy, he found, the [Bush] administration made sure that didn't happen. Following the playbook laid out at the 1998 meeting at the American Petroleum Institute, officials made sure that every report and speech cast climate science as dodgy, uncertain, controversial—and therefore no basis for making policy. Ex-oil lobbyist Philip Cooney, working for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as "lack of understanding" and "considerable uncertainty." A short section on climate in another report was cut entirely. The White House "directed us to remove all mentions of it," says Piltz, who resigned in protest. An oil lobbyist faxed Cooney, "You are doing a great job."
The response to the international climate panel's latest report, in February, showed that greenhouse doubters have a lot of fight left in them. In addition to offering $10,000 to scientists willing to attack the report, which so angered [California Senator Barbara] Boxer, they are emphasizing a new theme. Even if the world is warming now, and even if that warming is due in part to the greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels, there's nothing to worry about. As [global warming denier and MIT meteorologist Richard] Lindzen wrote in a guest editorial in NEWSWEEK International in April, "There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe."
You can read the article in its entirety here - I recommend you do.
Bush may be changing his tune on climate change. "U.S. President George W. Bush vowed earlier this year to gather leading polluters together to discuss climate change and now he’s set the date: Sept. 27-28. Invitations have gone out to France, Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan, China, Canada, India, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Australia, Indonesia, South Africa as well as the European Union and United Nations. Reports say the president even intends to address the conference." This is actually the same week as a similar UN summit on the same subject - which may or may not be a coincidence.
The world's water tables are falling. (What's a water table?) "Since the overpumping of aquifers is occurring in many countries more or less simultaneously, the depletion of aquifers and the resulting harvest cutbacks could come at roughly the same time. And the accelerating depletion of aquifers means this day may come soon, creating potentially unmanageable food scarcity." Scary stuff.
The Nag is cute website (and British, again) which will send you little reminders once a month about "one easy thing you can do to be greener, cleaner and, if you're not careful, a tiny bit smug." Sounds fantastic to me, but I think I'm already pretty smug as-is.
The Times' #1 most emailed article: In Praise of Tap Water. "Tap water may now be the equal of bottled water, but that could change. The more the wealthy opt out of drinking tap water, the less political support there will be for investing in maintaining America’s public water supply. That would be a serious loss. Access to cheap, clean water is basic to the nation’s health."
"Not only is China’s emerging environmental movement tolerated by the central government; for the most part, it’s encouraged. More than 3,000 groups like Green Camel Bell currently operate in China, constituting the largest and most developed segment of the country’s budding civil society. Some NGO leaders are even consulted by government officials and praised by the state-controlled media.
The kid-glove treatment China’s environmental activists receive is not a sign that Beijing is willing to relinquish political control. The Communist Party’s agile leaders are well aware of the role that civil society groups have played in the fall of other authoritarian systems. Rather, the government is taking a calculated risk. It is opening space for political participation in the hope of preventing what it sees as an even greater threat: that the country’s rapidly deteriorating environment will imperil China’s vibrant economy—and perhaps, one day, the party’s own hold on power."
via MetaFilter (as usual, the user commentary is fantastic).
Two websites I am a big fan of are LifeHacker and Ask MetaFilter (well, and MetaFilter itself, which I guess makes three - and if you haven't heard of these sites before, you should check them out). Every now and then, LifeHacker will search through the Ask MetaFilter questions asked in the past week or two and post links the most interesting or useful questions in their "Ask MetaFilter roundups." (The most recent one, for example, is here.)
I'm shamelessly ripping off their idea here. Every now and then from here on out, I'll post links to a few environmentally related Ask MetaFilter questions. Obviously, not everyone answering can be 100% accurate or right all of the time, and that goes for the answers to these questions too. But if there's one thing I've realized from reading MeFi and Ask MeFi (as they're commonly abbreviated) for the past few years, it's that users there are an eloquent and educated bunch, at least for the most part. Ask MeFi especially is a gold mine of practical knowledge and answers to difficult questions - much more so than Yahoo Answers or (the now-defunct) Google Answers.
Hopefully it'll make a good contribution to this site's content too. On to the questions:
Go green or save green? "...what are the arguments for and against paying slightly more for green power? Or should I just go with the very cheapest? I'm aware that wind is probably the best choice in terms of emissions, but I'm wondering if I'm missing something. Is there an argument to be made for the loss in efficiency by paying a higher price for the same product?" Where can I find the most affordable solar panels to power my dorm room? "Solar panels are made from the offcuts of the semiconductor industry - the bulk of the manufacturing energy input occurs during the semiconductor production process, and thus that energy would simply be going to waste if the solar panels were not made...
...(But obviously the final application of the solar panel does make a difference. For example, solar powered garden/path lights trade a simple length of wire running under the grass and a few hours sweat installing it, for a solar panel that charges a cheap cadmium battery every day such that the battery is ruined within a year. The device then no-longer works, and so it typically becomes landfill - despite the amount of toxic cadmium it contains, and that it also contains a solar panel could produce another 30 years of energy. So in case of cheap garden lights, solar panels are clearly enabling a convenience that is environmentally harmful.)" What can I do, from the big changes on down to the minutae, to make a difference to the environment? (I posted this question a month ago as well - it may be the most informative of the lot) The local council is urging residents who live in a flat to get a food waste disposer (garbage disposal). Are these units an environmentally sound alternative to composting? "Both ways keep bulk out of your local landfill and biodegrade the food efficiently. However, by putting it in the sewer that sweet rich fertilizer you are making goes into lakes and streams to fuel algae and weeds. Better to put that in your garden and skip the chemical fertilizer. Put the meat down the disposal though, it can attract animals and bugs and composts slowly."
What is the best tool to calculate my carbon footprint? "I've never really found one that I thought was super. I tried both of the ones here, and I think a more accurate description of both of them would be "calculate certain aspects of your carbon footprint and not others." ... this could be a really inaccurate calculation, say, if you crank up your AC at work all day vs. if you have a job in which you don't use AC at all. Or if you eat tons of New Zealand apples or Argentinian steak."
What's so bad about wasting water? "I'd say it's more of an economic consequence in the end. Environmental reasons would lead to shortage, therefore to higher prices, and then to water haves and have-nots. So the result of you using your money to "overuse" or "waste" water would ultimately result in higher prices, and poorer people not getting access to water...
...Greedy overuse or overspeculation of a commodity leads to haves and have-nots of that commodity. With water, we really don't want to get to that point."
...I support reductions of carbon emissions by 20 percent by the year 2020, and reduce it by at least 80 percent by the year 2050--because that's what the science tells us we need to do. If we don't listen to the science--if we continue to ignore it, as this administration has done--the results will be catastrophic...
...Here's what's really important to understand: we can actually turn the crisis of global warming into an opportunity. We can create a new, clean energy economy that creates 1 million new jobs, ends our dependence on foreign oil, and brings rural communities back to life. And ultimately, we can become a leader for the rest of the world.
Our first priority is capping and reducing greenhouse gas pollution. We must do what the consensus of the scientific community says is necessary to stop the Earth from getting more than 2 degrees warmer...
...In terms of how we get there, we need to invest in renewable energies like wind, solar, and biofuels. And we have to raise the fuel-efficiency standards significantly in this country. I believe the number is 40 miles per gallon by 2016. That would single-handedly reduce oil demand by 4 million barrels per day.
We must lead the world to a new climate treaty that commits other countries -- including developing nations --to reduce their pollution. I will insist that developing countries join us in this effort, by offering to share new clean energy technology and, if necessary, using trade agreements to require binding greenhouse reductions.
I will create a New Energy Economy Fund by auctioning off greenhouse pollution permits and repealing subsidies for big oil companies. The fund will support U.S. research and development in energy technology, help entrepreneurs start new businesses, invest in new carbon-capture and efficient automobile technology and help Americans conserve energy. Finally, we must reduce the demand for more electricity through efficiency for the next decade, instead of producing more electricity...
...As I said before, the disregard of science by the Bush administration -- the censorship of data and analysis of global warming, the treatment of stem cell research, mercury emissions and other subjects - has been shameful.
As president, I will ensure that government professionals charged with the collection and analysis of scientific data--from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to the EPA--are insulated from political influence. Period.
I feel more and more so all the time that Edwards would certainly be the best president out of the current field. He has his priorities straight and his ideas strong. I hope at the very least you will read the entirety of the interview (including more on his opinion of Bush's anti-science legacy and his feelings on universal health care) and continue to educate yourself about your candidate and all other candidates about the things that matter.
Does this mean I "officially" endorse him? No. I believe I have the right to change my mind about anyone at any time without having to feel stupid about it. I still want to hear a lot more about Clinton's health care plan - although I think she's certainly weaker on the environment than Obama or Edwards - and more from Obama and Richardson in general. But for now I'm sticking with Edwards.
How to grill greener. "Grilling with charcoal, the traditionalist's choice, gives off more health-harming carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and soot than other methods."
A new computer company, Zonbu, makes PCs that use less than 10% of the power of an average Windows PC, and can be sent back to the company, postage-paid, if it breaks. Combined with the relatively new practice of remote server storage, which facilitates interchangeability if a computer needs replacing, and it seems like a pretty good deal. (Did I mention it's $99?)
SOLARA is the first fully solar-powered apartment complex in California. (I was unaware there were any anywhere else in the US, either.) TreeHugger digs solar-powered multi-family units - as do I - much more than single-family homes because of the smaller infrastructure and land consumed. They claim to have a 95% smaller carbon footprint than a "conventionally powered community." And it's low-income housing too, not a playground for yuppies, which is definitely yet another step in the right direction. Wow. Use ice to help keep buildings cool? I'll leave the detailed explaining to TH, but I will say that this is basically the same heat exchange technology that powers the famous $30 do-it-yourself home air conditioner (which I personally tried last summer, and does work if you do it right).
Photo of newly installed solar panels on the roof of Flickr user Bernd Sieker.
Is Europe facing "green-burnout"? Despite being bombarded with messages about carbon consumption and environmental stewardship, Europeans are more pessimistic about solutions to climate change, and do not rank it as a priority higher than Americans do.
A good analysis as to why this may be is proposed:
According to some environmental experts, the roots of the problem lie with the gap between apocalyptic rhetoric about climate change from the scientific community and the pace of actual measures to stop it. Think of those warnings about melting ice caps and parts of cities like New York submerged by rising seas. And think of the slow rate at which governments actually are pursuing global solutions, like the glacial pace of negotiations on the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gas emissions...
...Another problem, say experts, is that citizens are receiving conflicting messages about how they can help. "People are wrestling with how to position curbing climate change in their lifestyles," said Seb Beloe, vice president of research and advocacy at SustainAbility, a London-based business that advises companies on climate-change strategies. "Is it really just about changing to low-energy light bulbs or is it something much more, like changing the entire way they live?"
Another factor, Beloe said, is the adoption by the entertainment industry of global warming as its latest cause.
He said Madonna's performance this month at the Live Earth concert promoted by the former U.S. Vice President Al Gore was a bizarre touch that risked trivializing efforts to tackle global warming.
"The Madonna brand has never been one of austerity and greenness and caring," Beloe said, referring to her 1980s hit "Material Girl," which celebrated conspicuous consumption.
I feel like the quote about light bulbs and "changing the entire way we live" quote casts a harsh either-or light on the problem. Why can't changing out light bulbs be the first step in a multi-step process that will eventually change big portions of our lives? We have to start somewhere, right?
Two tip-offs today from friends serve as interesting reads...
New York Magazine explores the ramifications of the biggest oil spill in American history - directly underneath Greenpoint, Brooklyn. "In 1979, the Coast Guard’s engineers concluded that only about 50 percent of the oil and solvents from this spill could ever be cleaned up, though another 20 percent might dissolve or wash away over time. That would leave 30 percent of it trapped under the neighborhood forever." Exploding manhole covers, underground carcinogens, ExxonMobil lawsuits, Brooklyn drama - this article really has it all. (Thanks Andrew)
Al Gore's latest strategy: a competition to create a series of agenda-pushing ads. To be honest, I think this should have been the first thing he did if he was trying to win Americans' hearts and minds - after all, it's not real until it's on TV right? I think this will probably be his most successful public relations pitch yet, much more so than the movie or Live Earth. "The way nations and societies make up their minds in the modern age has much more to do with mass advertising than many of us purists would like, but that’s the reality ... Since we face a true planetary emergency, we have to give the planet a P.R. agent.” (Thanks Prasanth)
To clarify - I'm still undecided. I'm sure we'll be hearing much more about climate policy from every candidate in the near future - and I'll certainly be writing more about it - but for now, at least, he seems to be the one taking global warming the most seriously. If he can put his money where his mouth is on this, Iraq, and health care, he has my vote.
NYC's Jamaica Bay is disappearing. Records show Jamaica Bay averaged a loss of 26 acres a year from the mid-1970s until the mid-1990s, but the pace picked up to more than 40 acres a year by 1999, the last time a comprehensive look was taken, said Brad Sewell of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who serves as co-chairman of an advisory committee for the bay."
After a legislative struggle, California is (barely) passing new climate bills. "California, which is the 12th-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, has set a 2020 deadline to reduce its heat-trapping gases by about a quarter. The transportation sector accounts for about 40 percent of the state's emissions."
"There is definitely going to be some local impact with having an event like this," - Jim Motavalli, editor of E/The Environmental Magazine and author of the book "Green Living."
"We're using enough power for ten houses just for lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical [if we played Live Earth]." - Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helder (source)
Either way, you can find out more information about Live Earth and the bands supporting it at the official web site or watch it live on MSN if you're interested. More information - and the source for the first quote - at this CNN article.
About me I'm a student at Tufts University in Somerville, MA, a writer, and a wannabe environmentalist. This is my new pet project. Feel free to email me with any questions or comments.
