Good News for All.

Here is Obama discussing his view of making things better:

"Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation,” Obama said in his radio address. “It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology...“It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient,” Obama said. “Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States – and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work."

Science isn't the only thing that matters, but it sure matters a whole lot. Particularly when it comes to issues of Science, like biology and ecology and technology for making the planet more livable. Generally speaking, science should have a pretty strong voice in such matters.

Endangering Species

When you cause damage to the management of endangered species, it's often irreversible. Yet, high ranking officials in this government continue to do it, and science continues to be ignored.
"A high-ranking Interior Department official tainted nearly every decision made on the protection of endangered species over five years, a new inspector general report finds, concluding she exerted improper political interference on many more rulings than previously thought.
Julie MacDonald, a former deputy assistant secretary overseeing the Fish and Wildlife Service, did pervasive harm to the department's morale and integrity and may have risked the well-being of species with her agenda."
Why do this? Personal or political agenda can only get you so far in your reasons, and Julie MacDonald, it seems, took things far beyond that.
"'Her heavy-handedness has cast doubt on nearly every ESA decision issued during her tenure,' from 2002 until 2007, the report said...the report by Devaney last year found that she broke federal rules and should face punishment for leaking information about endangered species to private groups. That report also said MacDonald censored science and mistreated staff."
There's only so long that science can be treated with such contempt and humans can continue to live. Hopefully, that kind of behavior will stop for good with the Bush Administration.

Don't Believe the Myths

TreeHugger has a list of 5 common myths that surrounding causes for climate change. It's a fairly interesting bit of reading, for those of you looking to read something. But I will say that is has its share of problems.
Here are some mythic examples:

Green Myth #1: Genetically Modified Crops Have Higher Crop Yields and Help Reduce Poverty. (this is one that strikes me as problematic).

Green Myth #4: Wind Turbines Are a Serious Threat to Birds. (this, however, is right on, and needs to be extinguished).

News update; Two Stories...

...That require only blurbs.
First, some failure: "The Senate on Thursday night abandoned efforts to fashion a government rescue of the American automobile industry, as Senate Republicans refused to support a bill endorsed by the White House and Congressional Democrats."
Second, a positive eco-story (!):"The powerful California Air Resources Board has adopted the nation’s first and most sweeping plan to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. The action aims to slash the state’s emissions by 15% over the next 12 years and sets targets for practically every sector of the economy, the eighth largest in the world."
If California is successful, managing such a large economy, maybe there's some hope.

The Environment of American Environmentalism, part 3

So here’s the problem: How boring would this discussion be on national television? Maybe I’m anti-capitalist, that does not bother me; I’m certainly not anti-religion. But if you argue on television that you do not mind being anti-capitalist, you default into anti-democracy, and anti-religion. Possibly even anti-freedom. The United States lives in a time when one’s conscience can only be voiced with authority in the public world if the conversation focuses on very specific issues. There is no need to name them; we all know them. But the environment is not one of them.
That may sound like a surprise. Everyone on tv, every station and every news channel has their devoted programs and anchors and spokesfolks to discuss Climate Change and melting ice caps and the endangerment of Polar Bears. They just don’t want to talk about solving the problems they represent: conserving energy and polluting less in an effort to protect the ice caps, and thus the Polar Bears. Why would they? What would they report on?
The true result of bringing environmental activism into the public sphere has not been seen, because it has not occurred. Even Al Gore, Oscar winner and Nobel Laureate, can’t bring it about. I hope he keeps trying. Next year we’ll have a pro-environment President, they say, and he’ll put energy issues and conservation on the map. I’m hopeful that the results will be positive. But it’s just hope, now.
That’s the problem. No one, yet, has carried to the American people the face and fire of the environmental damage which has occurred, and will continue to occur. So how can someone who believes that the natural world deserves more attention than, say, prosperity, enter the debate? If we’re talking about the American people, and somehow in this country we always are, how can one tell the nation convincingly that the bog preserve they smell could be more important than their pocketbooks? It just won’t sound quite, well, polite enough to be accepted. It certainly doesn’t sound like something Jesus would say.
Maybe it’s not. But that’s where reading the Bible for years, and reading the land for years, has brought me. And I know, and thank whatever God there is, that it’s not just me with a clear conscience. The world will not be in more peril because of me; that is all I’ve figured out how to do. I hope we protect this world; I hope others will do their part to keep it around. But until those nationally televised pundits allow science into the conversation without the crippling banner of socialism and anti-capitalism, until they realize that most of us have got nothing against the Bible or their God, we just might not believe in them, what chance do we have?

oh. my. god.

What have they done to my beloved Christmas? And in the name of CLEAN COAL?
Instead of posting about this abomination myself, I am just going to set up the link to the Clean Coal Carolers, and to the folks over at EnviroWonk, who have done a nice job with this one.

When is a book not a book.

I fear the end of books, when we will all read things on a small, electronic device. It doesn't sound appealing, but it will probably come around. The business of making books is not very earth-friendly. Despite my best efforts to claim that book reading is better for the planet than the electronic alternatives, the argument is getting harder to uphold.
"There are caveats as usual, but I am forced to report the general conclusion that e-books produce less CO2 emissions and use less water than conventional newspapers and books...Of course, all these studies make certain assumptions, and the results change depending on the source of electricity, the number of times a newspaper is read, how long the e-reader is used, and so on. There is also, of course, the unquantifiable joy of holding and touching real paper...There does, however, appear to be a pro-e-reader trend."

The Environment of American Environmentalism, part 2

If science is overrated, one assumes the alternative must be religion. In this country, Christianity and the Bible are what the tv talks about, when the tv talks about religion. But, you know, I’ve read the Bible; the Bible doesn’t particularly answer the environmental questions. Nor does it defeat them. It certainly does not tell us to destroy the earth, although that has been proclaimed with ‘subdue the earth;’ nor does it tell us to worship the earth. It pretty much says that everything from God is good, and love your neighbor and the Lord.
When I used to read the Bible, I enjoyed it. There is very little concern with science, as far as I can tell. Sadly, though, it has been held up as the opposition to science. When someone claims science is overrated, I can only assume the contrast is to something like faith, and I shake my head and think, how did this happen? How did the battle lines become so concrete?
Religion deals with conscience, and conscience is an important thing. When I am asleep, and my wife sleeps next to me, and my conscience from the previous day is clear, everything in the world seems fine. Peace brings rest and the world moves forward and I think that maybe nature won’t be destroyed by humanity. But most of the time I am awake, and I think the natural world could be doomed to suffer a slow, slow death. At those times, it’s easier for me to worry about my own actions, my own impact on the tiny ecological world that I inhabit, and do everything not bring harm upon it, because too many others aren’t looking out for theirs. That’s how I view membership in the physical world.
Mary Oliver said that she thinks like an ecologist but lives like a member of a great family that includes herself and elephants and teachers and industrialists and wheat. I think that’s a brilliant woman who has found a way to exist in the world. I’m not an ecologist by trade. But I can find no justification, in the Bible or elsewhere, to live in the world while simultaneously harming it. This position, of human as equal members of the earth, has become the enemy of politics, both republican and democrat. Politicians are frustrating to listen to because they spend so much time not talking about something. By not talking about it, they believe they are free from the concern and will voice support for something else. If you do not talk about the destruction of forests in your state, and you do not oppose it, you support the loss of those forests, politician. You should know that. The Bible agrees with me on this. And you should want the forests anyway. Maybe, if things change, you will want the Lord to some day appear near your presence, or maybe you’ll want to bring an offering. That seems to happen an awful lot in the presence of trees.

The Environment of American Environmentalism, part 1

The Environmental Movement, as it has taken shape these past few years, cannot offer answers to those who would not allow answers. It moves no conscience when one’s conscience cannot be moved. For example, a while back, a certain bow-tied conservative said on national television that ‘science is overrated.’ To this there can be no response. Much later, another pundit on the same network asked a gentleman on his national program about the scientific community’s view on Global Warming. The response was that the science was practically conclusive and that the threat of Global Warming has not been overestimated. Then, another gentleman on the program was allowed to respond. He replied that Global Warming is ‘socialist alarmism.’ This is the public debate, as it stands, in 2008.
I do not pretend to understand all the science that is involved in Climate Change, as I am sure those national pundits would also concede. But the world under discussion in this debate is not beyond me; nor is it beyond any other television host or writer. I can see it right here, or in Chicago, and after years of appreciating the planet I live on, and listening to people proclaim their overt desire to destroy it, I have come to realize that my conscience will no longer allow me to live in a way that destroys the earth. It’s not much for a revelation, maybe, but it’s difficult.
The same people who think science is overrated in the Climate Change debate also do not want America to change its ways. They will say something to the effect of ‘China and India are big, dirty, industrial countries, and getting bigger and dirtier, so why should we change if they won’t.’ I have heard from many people who maintain this opinion, who must be smart, logical women and men. But their logic is deeply flawed. The world is not just somewhere else, as this argument supposes; the world is here. Despite what some may wish to believe, the natural world still lives in the U.S., and if we as a nation wanted to keep it, we would try, even against the longest odds, to protect it. No matter India or China’s opinion.
In the same interview that suggested environmentalism was socialist alarmism, the host claimed that environmentalism is fundamentally anti-capitalist. What do they mean? That’s not a rhetorical question. I don’t know what they mean. If we make fuel efficient automobiles and start encouraging mass transit and bicycling instead of driving, or investigate and invest further into alternative energy sources, does this mean we don’t want the U.S. to thrive? The environment can produce jobs, and it will, as does any new and growing industry. If we know that surface mining for coal harms the little remaining bit of the natural world left in the U.S., why don’t we attempt to do something else? At least try to. The conscience of the country will support it.
Maybe that is too bold a statement. But do people really want the country to continue growing in a way that will permanently alter and disfigure the face of the planet if we know it is happening and are making no serious attempts to stop it? This Bush administration seems to believe Capitalism cannot be defeated. So how can the environmentalists harm capitalism by trying something new? Isn’t that what capitalism is supposed to be all about?
Yet here we are, somehow positioning environmental concern with anti-capitalism and socialist propaganda. ‘Think twice about buying an SUV’ has transformed from sensible advice to a credo that marks one as an anti-business, tree-hugging activist who hates America and wealth. Truth be told, I don’t really like wealth, and I am an activist. Most of the people I know don’t have any real wealth. Most of those who do don’t seem to care much about the trees they see me hugging, or any other part of the world surrounding us. That’s why we seem anti-capitalist, I guess, when we’re really just thinking: why don’t people with millions to spare, spare a little to help save some of this?
They don’t seem to want to. Most of them, anyway. So what can I do? As a young man who simply enjoys immersing himself whenever possible into the natural world, who doesn’t want to see that part of it that remains in the U.S. destroyed, who is trying in every part of his life to simply not harm life. This is who I am, and I’m trying to figure out what to do. But I guess I already know.
I’ll continue to ride my bike to work as long as it’s possible, and if it rains too hard, I’ll take the bus. I’ll do everything I can not to waste energy in my home, or water. I won’t throw trash on the ground; I’ll recycle everything I can. When my wife and I can own a house, we’ll outfit it in order to conserve as much as possible. Can it get more basic? Doesn’t it seem like nothing? Those nationally televised pundits, who sit behind their desks and claim the pitfalls of science and the alarmism of activism, they see these actions of mine, and they see a threat. To Capitalism, and Democracy, and other Idols. Even these simple tasks are not encouraged to our citizens because they are a change leading towards, as unlikely as it sounds, socialism. But at night, even though the science will be beyond me and the debate may never end, I will simply go to sleep next to my wife, with my conscience clear, knowing that today I did as little as I could to add to the destruction of the world that surrounds me.

Recycling takes a downturn

Did you know that recycling is an industry? It's true. And like most industries, the recycling world is in trouble.
"The economic downturn has decimated the market for recycled materials like cardboard, plastic, newspaper and metals. Across the country, this junk is accumulating by the ton in the yards and warehouses of recycling contractors, which are unable to find buyers or are unwilling to sell at rock-bottom prices."
Notice how quickly the material has become 'junk.' It was no such thing just a few months ago, when people were stealing the siding from trailer-homes and ripping the plumbing out of foreclosed houses. Now, no one wants to buy that junk, because the buyers have no one to sell it to. And when recyclers cannot recylce the material, they do what everyone else does with it. Drop it in a landfill.
"Ordinarily the material would be turned into products like car parts, book covers and boxes for electronics. But with the slump in the scrap market, a trickle is starting to head for landfills instead of a second life."
Recycling strikes RTM as the fundamental action of an earth-friendly community. If we can't maintain a respectable, workable system for reusing our waste, then other commitments, like reducing our carbon output, are just not going to come about. How bad is it? "The precipitous drop in prices for recyclables makes the stock market’s performance seem almost enviable." Talk about a dire situation.
How does it fare for the environment? "'Before, you could be green by being greedy,' said Jim Wilcox, a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. 'Now you’ve really got to rely more on your notions of civic participation.'” Have we come far enough along in our environmental ethics to continue a program that is good for the earth but not for the pocketbook? One can only hope.

Making Spirits Bright

Paul Krugman is spreading Christmas cheer around the globe. How? By predicting the end of the U.S. Auto Industry. I like Krugman, and think he has a pretty good read on the pulse of our economic situation, but does that mean we have to beleaguer how desperate our situation is for the satisfactino all those Swedes? (Krugman is in Sweden to receive his Nobel).
"[The American auto industry will disappear] because of the geographical forces that me and my colleagues have discussed."
Good point, Paul. Way to make things clear.
As to the bailout? "Krugman said plans by U.S. lawmakers to bail out the Big Three automakers were a short-term solution, resulting from a 'lack of willingness to accept the failure of a large industry in the midst of an economic crisis.'"
No argument here.

the Lemuroid Possum

It's no small story when an animal goes extinct. Extinction, particularly from human causes, is always a sad story and it is with sadness, we report that scientists believe that Climate Change has brought about the first mammalian extinction: the white lemuroid possum.
"The white lemuroid possum, a rare creature found only above 1000m in the mountain forests of far north Queensland, [Australia,] has not been seen for three years. Experts fear climate change is to blame for the disappearance of the highly vulnerable species thanks to a temperature rise of up to 0.8C."
This is an important reminder of the delicacy of the ecosystems of earth. 0.8 degrees may not seem like much, but the ecological equilibriums that have been created on the planet are precise, and even slight changes can have negative, and irreversible, affects.
This possum is a sensitive and vulnerable creature to begin with, and some think it will be "the most significant loss since the extinction of the Dodo and the Tasmanian Tiger." "

The dangers of lame ducks

I don't understand these kinds of decisions. The possible benefit of advancing surface mining is very small, and yet here it is coming about. This is just another bad Bush environmental policy, and everyone must know it, or it wouldn't be snuck into law in the last moments of a lame-duck presidency.
"The Bush administration is easing the way for coal companies to dump debris from mountaintop mining into nearby valleys and streams in a move deplored by environmental and Appalachian citizens' groups. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday approved the repeal of a 1983 law that prohibited surface coal mining within 100 feet of flowing streams."
What purpose are we serving here, for long term good? Besides the terrible damage of mountain top and surface mining that is already taking place, we now are going to allow the waste to be dumped into the waters? The EPA itself has "concluded that dumping mining waste into streams devastates downstream water quality." And yet, the agency will be repealing their own regulation on the practice.

The Future of Clean Coal

RTM posted a while back about the relief of having someone, even Al Gore, speak out about the illusion that is clean coal as a positive environmentally friendly option. It's not an option because it is not. It just isn't there. I believe RTM said: "Real solutions are available and necessary, not simply fantasy."
Now Gore and co. have a new ad highlighting the illusory nature of this clean coal, and the red herring nature of those who speak out for it. It's like the Bush plan to develop hydrogen fuel cell powered cars to end the addiction to oil, which he began discussing in the state of the union 2000 and continued ad nauseum.

drive to DC, leave with billions

The Big 3 automakers are back before congress, desperately seeking billions of dollars to keep them afloat. Without the money from the federal government, there seems little doubt that they will flounder, enter bankruptcy, and possibly collapse.
These billionaire CEOs are back, and they are willing, this time, to admit to some of the mistakes the American Automakers have made. Big of them.
Here's Rick Wagoner, head of GM: "We’re here today because we made mistakes...we’re here because forces beyond our control have pushed us to the brink....I'm sorry to be asking for this support."
I got to tell you, Wagoner and friends, I just don't know that I believe you. I don't think you're sorry at all; I don't think you believe you've made mistakes. It's all 'forces beyond your control.' That's what I think.
If you want the money, you need to know what you will do with it. Profitability by 2011 through more fuel efficient cars doesn't cut it for me. Because it won't happen. Unless you've got the cars sitting in a stockroom, unrevealed, that can come out and compete fiercely, which you don't. You might have cars on the drawing board, or ready for sale, like the Volt, which I sincerely wish could compete in the market, but if you truly had cars that could sell you wouldn't be where you are. Because this is not a new problem, it is not this recessions fault. It has been happening for some time and you have been ignoring it.
I don't pretend to know if the bailout will help or not. I don't know. But I can watch, and read, and see the behavior of those who will get this money. And we can question whether it is deserved.
p.s. Driving your hybrids to Washington! Beautiful. Since we didn't take our private jets, you can see we've learned our lesson. Isn't there a word for that kind of faux-eco-behavior? Green-washing, isn't it?

Your Thermostat and Your Absence

The Grist Q&A known as Umbra, has taken on an issue that I have debated, time and again, with several people in this world. You know who you are. I'm not saying this is the final word, but it's another voice, maybe one folks will take as more weighted than mine.

"Q: When I tell people I turn my heat down when I leave the house even for an hour or two, and that I turn it down to 50 at night, they say, "I thought it takes more energy to reheat the house than to keep it at a constant temperature. Please clarify. If it is better to turn the heat down, then there is a LOT of room for education on this topic, as even many people in the environmental community are confused.
A: But let me be crystal clear up here in the thesis paragraph: Turn down the thermostat at night and before you leave the house...I repeat: Reheating uses less energy than keeping it hot while you're gone. No organization -- reputable or disreputable -- disagrees with this advice. To quote the EERE, "This misconception has been dispelled by years of research and numerous studies."
People, turn your thermostats down."

Read the article for the explanation if you want. There's only one person I know who lives by this rule religiously, and I live in his basement. For once, I applaud his actions.

talk about your broken system

This isn't enviro-related, but it is career related for RTM, and it makes RTM not as sad about leaving his post in higher education. The system is ridiculous, and getting worse. Its as though, as institutions, our colleges and universities do not want to offer education to everyone.

"Over all, the report found, published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007, adjusted for inflation, while median family income rose 147 percent. Student borrowing has more than doubled in the last decade, and students from lower-income families, on average, get smaller grants from the colleges they attend than students from more affluent families.
'If we go on this way for another 25 years, we won’t have an affordable system of higher education,' said Patrick M. Callan, president of the center, a nonpartisan organization that promotes access to higher education....'Already, we’re one of the few countries where 25- to 34-year-olds are less educated than older workers.'”

Obama's move to the Green House

If he can do it to that old Manor, then you can do it to your studio apartment, 1 bedroom flat or even your McMansion.

"Obama will be sworn in on Jan. 20, and he said he wants to work quickly to make the White House "green." The president-elect said he plans to sit down with the chief usher for the presidential mansion and do an evaluation of its energy efficiency .'Part of what I want to do is to show the American people that it's not that hard,' Obama said."

Forests, Preserved...

There is not that much forest wilderness remaining on the planet. Some people will disagree with such a statement, but how they can do so is a mystery to me. We are ruining wilderness, and quickly. But there are places where massive forests still grow, like Brazil, and protecting them should become a priority. There are several reasons this is important, which is fodder for another post. That protection is coming, if slowly, to the Brazilian forests.
"The Brazilian government on Monday unveiled a plan to cut the deforestation of the Amazon by 70 percent over the next decade. It is the first time Brazil, home to the largest area of tropical woodland on the planet, has set a target for reducing the damage wrought by illegal loggers and ranchers."
Illegal deforestation wreaks great damage on in the Amazon, but legal logging also causes problems. Forests take carbon out of the air, and they make the planet, which we can all support, livable.
"Just in terms of avoided deforestation in the Amazon, the plan foresees a reduction of 4.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide that won't be emitted up to 2018 -- which is more than the reduction efforts fixed by all the rich countries."
We'll see how it goes; skeptics, of course, are numerous when it comes to Brazil's plans. It would have been nice if this could have happened a decade or so ago, but it's still a positive step.