Scary Outlook

Last week saw the release of The United Nations Environment Programme's Global Environment Outlook. It is a rather monstrous 540 pages (22.5-mb PDF), but the press release alone is frightening enough.

Maybe what is scarier is that I was hard pressed to find much mention of it in any U.S. press. Perhaps, they are still hard at work digesting the full weight of it. There is, however, plenty to read in foreign papers.

The Times (U.K.) science editor, Marc Henderson, writes in his piece: "Though the report's language might sound extreme, with talk of 'humanity's very survival' at risk, the structure of the WEO actually lends itself to conservatism. Its findings deserve to be taken very seriously as a result -- this is not scaremongering to make a point."

When the point's as important as this one, is scaremongering really such a bad thing? OK, point taken that this report is pure, peer-reviewed science -- and scary to boot.

Although the report does highlight and praise some progress, it points to persistent and intractable problems. Can you guess what those might be?

Apollo's Fire on Tour

Has anyone had a chance to check out Apollo's Fire, the new book on energy solutions by Washington Congressman Jay Inslee and Bracken Hendricks? Rep. Inslee is currently in the middle of a book tour, and Our Man in Seattle says he did "a great job of conveying the importance for our state and federal government to step up to the plate and match the innovation and leadership that is being shown by individuals, entrepreneurs, and local governments around the country to address global warming and put clean energy solutions in place." I couldn't find an online listing of his remaining appearances, but I did get a schedule from his publisher, which I'll include below in case anyone wants to hear him firsthand:

Bellingham, WA -- November 3 Village Books/First Congregational Church,7 p.m.

Seattle, WA -- November 4 Seattle Town Hall/Elliott Bay Book Company/ Seattle University, 2 p.m.

Iowa City, IA -- November 12 Prairie Lights Books, 7 p.m.

Cambridge, MA -- November 15 Harvard Bookstore, 7 p.m.

Portsmouth, NH -- November 16 River Run Books, 7 p.m.

Los Angeles, CA -- December 3 Vroman's Books, 7 p.m.

59 Days and Counting...

Is it just me, or do the green holiday tips appear earlier every year? I mean, we haven't even taken down our green Halloween decorations. Wait a minute -- we haven't put them up yet! And now Newsweek's already admonishing us not to buy an artificial tree. That's alright, though. We love a good green tip as much as anyone, and you can hardly fault Newsweek for relying on a source as expert as Sierra Club Green Life maven Jennifer Hattam. So, sure, bring on the reversible bamboo cheese boards and eco-spa gift certificates, please. And don't buy an artificial jack-o-lantern, OK?

Time of the Heroes

Time Magazine unveils its selection of environmental heroes for 2007. It's well worth the browse. While some of the heroes like, say, Al Gore, are (duh!) no surprise, others, such as the Nobel-winning atmospheric scientist Paul Crutzen, who has proposed injecting sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere to counteract global warming, are liable to be far less familiar. Crutzen's geoengineering scheme will no doubt strike many environmentalists as sheer madness, but the admiring write-up in Time is penned by no less an authority (and environmental hero) than NASA's James Hansen. Hansen calls Crutzen's proposal a "radical idea," but says Crutzen is a "scientists' scientist" who is always "one step ahead of everybody else."

Given the latest news regarding the unexpected acceleration in C02 levels, this may be where we're headed, like it or not. Even if it works (and volcanic eruptions prove it can), we'd still have to eliminate carbon emissions to stop ocean acidification. Until we accomplish that, however, Crutzen's plan could buy us desperately needed time. As scientist Ken Caldeira posed the question in the New York Times earlier this week, "Which is the more environmentally sensitive thing to do: let the Greenland ice sheet collapse and polar bears become extinct, or throw a little sulfate in the stratosphere? The second option is at least worth looking into."

The Pale Blue Dot

Introducing Dot Earth, New York Times science correspondent Andy Revkin's new blog. Probably no other reporter in the world today has more experience reporting on the environment and, in particular, climate change, than Revkin does. He is an extremely well-versed and level-headed guide to the challenges we face.

Revkin took the name of his blog from Carl Sagan, who described the Earth as "a pale blue dot" in the cosmos. The tag line is: Nine billion people. One planet. Which, if you ask me, is a pretty neat summation of the ride we're all on. Of course, we're not at 9 billion yet. More like 6.5. But we're headed there fast, with demographers expecting us to reach the mark by mid-century.

Hang on tight everybody.

Of Lightbulbs and Leaders

Nice piece in The New York Times by Thomas Friedman, about yellow cabs turning green. We can do our share as individuals to curb carbon emissions and hold off the consequences of global warming, but what we also need to do--beyond changing light bulbs--is to change leaders. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg put it simply:

When it comes to health and safety and environmental issues, government should be setting standards. What you need are leaders who are willing to push for standards that are in society’s long-term interest.

Start Me Up

When BP, the company formerly known as British Petroleum, dumped half-a-billion in cash into University of California Berkeley's research coffers, the outcry was (surprise, surprise) loud, indignant, and, many on the inside say, foolish. In an article called "Start-up U," Lisa Margonelli reports on the Berkeley energy venture for the California Monthly, the UC alumni magazine. Among others, she quotes Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Director Steven Chu:

In Chu’s view, the magnitude and speed of climate change calls for a close partnership between research institutions, government regulators, and industry. By setting standards and establishing incentives, smart regulators can push industry, setting in motion big technological changes. “Getting technology deployed is best done in a business space,” he says. “You can develop technology at research institutions, as has been done in the past, but there’s a time delay. I don’t think we have a time luxury,” he asserts. “We want to partner with industry early because industry’s strength is that they can make technology scalable.” Chu understands that not everyone shares this view. “A small segment doesn’t understand that moving fast is better than maintaining purity,” he says. “Monasteries are good places, but they’re not good for science.”

Get Ready for Polar-Palooza

The IPY takes the show on the road. See tour dates here.

Wonder if Perry Farrell knows about this?

Climbers Take Stock

In the 2007 American Alpine Journal, the annual publication of the American Alpine Club, mountain guide Joe Stock writes about "The Front Lines of Climate Change" -- the mountains, that is, where many classic climbing routes have literally disappeared thanks to the ravages of global warming. Writes Stock:

Most Americans hear a lot about climate change, but their conversation on the subject may be spurred only by a heat wave or a balmy winter; their interest soon dies and they go on with their lives. The situation is different for those of us who play and work on glaciers. We have climate change shoved in our faces on every trip.

He challenges his cramponed comrades to share what they see: "Tell your stories. Blow up your photos. Write a story for your local paper. You don't have to be a scientist. Just tell them what you see."

But of course, climbers themselves are part of the problem, jetting around as they do on months-long expeditions and hitting the road for weekend forays. To mitigate that impact, Stock and fellow Anchorage climbers are working to incorporate offsets into the cost of flying with bush pilots into the Alaska Range. To learn more, see Climb Green.

Sequencing Slime

News from the Green Alga Genome Project:

"DOE JGI's particular interest in Chlamy [algae] centers on its keen ability to efficiently capture and convert sunlight into energy, and its role in managing the global pool of carbon," said Rokhsar [the Dept of Energy Joint Genome Institute Computational Biology Program head]. The sequence analysis presents a comprehensive set of genes--the molecular and biochemical instructions--required for these capabilities. Rokhsar said that with these data now publicly available, new strategies for biology-based solar energy capture, carbon assimilation, and detoxification of soils by employing algae to remove heavy metal contaminants will begin to surface. The analysis will also shed light on the capabilities of related algae that can produce biodiesel and biocrude as alternatives to fossil fuels.

Sounds good. Just wish I understood it.

For the Record

I posted an item last week about scientist-author Tim Flannery's alarming announcement that we had surpassed the 450ppm threshold for CO2 equivalency. The Christian Science Monitor even quoted me to explain to readers why that mattered. Well, the scientists-bloggers at Real Climate now say that Flannery got it wrong. They write:

The important number is CO2_e (Total) which is around 375 ppmv. Stabilisation scenarios of 450 ppmv or 550 ppmv are therefore still within reach. Claims that we have passed the first target are simply incorrect, however, that is not to say they are easily achievable. It is even more of a stretch to state that we have all of a sudden gone past the 'dangerous' level. It is still not clear what that level is, but if you take a conventional 450 ppmv CO2_e value (which will lead to a net equilibrium warming of ~ 2 deg C above pre-industrial levels), we are still a number of years from that, and we have (probably) not yet committed ourselves to reaching it.

Gavin Shmidt, who wrote the post, adds: "I wish journalists and editors would resist the temptation to jump on leaks like this (though I know it's hard). The situation is confusing enough without adding to it unintentionally."

Uh..., I guess claiming to be just a blogger doesn't let me off the hook. Does it? Thanks to the commenter who alerted me to the Real Climate post. I haven't seen any response to all this from Flannery himself, but as this post on Celsias notes, the IPCC report on which he supposedly based his assertion will be out soon -- November 7th.

Pollan's Manifesto

Michael Pollan, bestselling author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, has a new book called In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto. Despite having written a full-length book on the subject, Pollan helpfully boils his credo down to just seven words: "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." Tom Philpott discusses what to eat with Pollan here -- as well as farmers markets, the farm bill, and Cracker Jacks.

The Volt Vette Project

Sure, I like my Prius alright -- but I have to admit it pales next to this.

What car do you secretly wish you could electrify?

Blog Action Day

Today, October 15, is blog action day, and the theme is the environment. I've spent a little time trolling around a sampling of the 15,000+ blogs that have signed up, and I've decided that blogging must be an evening activity.

What I have found, though, ranges from calling for CNG-based public transit in Bangalore, a description of risks to a watershed in Australia, pollutants in Shellharbour to a description of someone's environmental roots: "spirituality ... frugality ... patriotism ... good economic sense". I'm sure there's a lot more out there; if you have found something worth disseminating, post a link to it in the comments below.

He Never Writes, He Never Calls

There was a time when he used to call me at home just to chat. We'd have a few laughs, swap tales of being and doing. Not anymore. Ever since he won that Oscar, Al Gore acts like he doesn't know me. Now, with this whole Nobel thing, forget about it. Ah well, it's not like I was counting on an ambassadorship or anything....

All kidding aside, this is great news! If you're reading Al, big props! And hugs to Tipper.

Ode to the Cryosphere

The exquisitely produced Northwest Mountaineering Journal features an excellent (that is to say, brief, clear and accessible) article on the status of the glaciers in Washington's North Cascades region -- home to the largest concentration of glaciers in the Lower 48. The prognosis is not good. Investigator Mauri Pelto concludes:

All 47 glaciers monitored by our project are currently undergoing a significant retreat or have disappeared altogether. Ongoing temperature rises combined with a reduction in snow accumulation in the North Cascades have resulted in widespread disequilibrium. Even the wet winter of 2007 yielded barely above-average snowpack in the mountains as more of that precipitation fell as rain.

The net loss over the last 20 years is a significant portion of the total glacier volume, estimated at 18 to 32 percent. Sadly, prevailing conditions provide little evidence that North Cascade glaciers are close to equilibrium. Their ongoing thinning indicates that all of the glaciers will continue to retreat into the foreseeable future.

The naysayers are fond of pointing to the relatively few areas in the world (such as those in Norway and on California's Mount Shasta) where glaciers are bucking this trend as proof that global warming is bunk. But don't be fooled. With very few exceptions, what is happening in the North Cascades is being repeated in all glaciated regions around the globe with serious repercussions on alpine ecosystems and water supply in many arid lowland regions that depend on seasonal snowmelt.

As a postscript, glacier aficionados will also want to read the profile of self-made glacier expert and photographer Austin Post.

Not Dead Yet! Feeling Pretty Good, Actually. . .

While the debate sparked by environmental bad boys Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger over public-investments-in-alternative-energy vs. cap-and-trade vs. Nietzsche continues to rattle the coffee cups at TPMCafe, it's refreshing to encounter an outsider's perspective on the subject of environmentalism's purported demise. Here's Ezra Klein in TAPPED, the blog over at The American Prospect:

Meanwhile, it's quite strange to hear criticisms of the environmental movement at this instant in time, given that I can't even recall a recent political movement that's been as successful at injecting their concerns and proposed solutions into the political debate as the environmentalists. Climate change has emerged onto the agenda from seemingly nowhere, and solutions like carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs that would've seem laughably utopian mere years ago are now proudly advocated by presidential candidates. And this is the movement N&S have arrived to save. Sorry doctors, but the patient seems pretty healthy.

Known Knowns

An earlier, shorter version of this essay by MIT professor of meteorology Kerry Emanuel appeared in the Boston Review. This hardbound edition is still blessedly brief -- a global warming book (by a scientist, no less) that you can read in one go. Most of the text is a clear-eyed, concise summation of (just like the title says) what we know (and don't know) about climate change to date. In the last chapter, however, the tone changes somewhat and Emanuel, who has been drawn into the political fray thanks to his work on global warming and hurricanes, drops the gloves and takes a few well-aimed jabs at both the media and the scientific community, as well as the political camps, left and right. In my opinion, this is the book at its most interesting:

Especially in the United States, the political debate about global climate change became polarized along the conservative-liberal axis some decades ago. Although we take this for granted now, it is not entirely obvious why the chips fell the way they did.

To learn what he means, you'll have to read the book (or at least the Boston Review essay for yourself).

I will only add that, for me at least, the afterword, by political scientist, Judith Layzer, and professor of something or other, William Moomaw, (no bios are given on my copy) is less compelling. But this is something I've noticed in all the books I've read on global warming: The problem as described is daunting and urgent but the prescriptions for dealing with it feel tacked on and hardly commensurate to the task ahead. I feel like I'm being reassured rather than leveled with. Anyone else feel that way?

Break Through Smackdown

Anyone who appreciates a good intellectual brawl should head over to this week's TPM Cafe Book Club, where an eclectic crowd is alternately eviscerating and defending can't-believe-they-get-so-much-ink Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger and their new book, Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility. Participants include William Chaloupka, Ross Gelbspan, Linda Hirshman, David Roberts, Joseph Romm, the Sierra Club's own Carl Pope, as well as a host of passionate commenters. Even with S&N remaining largely above the fray (so far, at least), the debate is warm enough to melt an ice sheet or two. Check it out.

Fast Track to Ruin

**Update to this post here.

Way back in May I noted that the world economies, far from de-carbonizing, were intensifying their carbon output. So, it's not that surprising to hear Tim Flannery's announcement today that greenhouse gas emissions are outstripping what had been considered the worst case scenario. The Australian scientist and bestselling author (The Weather Makers) told assembled press that, based on IPCC data, the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere had reached about 455 parts per million by mid-2005, decades sooner than expected.

It is worth noting a couple of things here:

• One, 450 ppm has long been held up as the threshold we dare not cross if we hope to avert the worst consequences of warming. Well, if Flannery is right, (and there's no reason to think otherwise), we crossed that line without even breaking stride.
  
  
• Two, the so-called stabilization wedges that Professors Soclow and Pacala devised as a way to solve the climate crisis were based on the IPCC's business-as-usual scenario in which carbon intensity, or the unit of CO2 per dollar of GDP, decreased. In fact, the economies of countries like China and India are "re-carbonizing"; that is, emitting more C02 per dollar of GDP as they turn increasingly to coal to feed their growth. In other words, then, the wedges, while still necessary steps, aren't enough.

The AP reports that, "The new data could add urgency to the next round of U.N. climate change talks on the Indonesian island of Bali in December, which will aim to start negotiations on a replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012." Well, yeah, one would certainly hope so. Wouldn't one?

Calling All Bloggers

Blog Action Day.

3 ways to get involved.

T minus 5.

Friend or Foe?

This can't turn out well for the husky. Or can it? You really should watch this slideshow.

Of course, it doesn't always turn out that way, but I'll refrain from linking to that footage.

Big Game

To turn my last bear posting on its head, just when you come to accept the fundamental goodness of your fellow man, you see something like this.

The above video depicts a legal hunt in the Katmai National Park and Preserve, where many bears have become habituated to the presence of fishermen and bear viewing tours. (You can see photos of the hunt here.) That habituation doesn't make the bears tame by any means, but it does makes them easy picking for the likes of the "sportsmen" shown in the video. That shouldn't be construed as a knee-jerk anti-hunting response, by the way. It's not, but I challenge anyone to watch the footage and tell me how sporting it is.

The Anchorage Daily News reports:

The hunters who shot the Katmai grizzly achieved "their proximity without much of a stalk. It looks more like a saunter through tundra," said Sean Farley, an Alaska Department of Fish and Game's bear biologist for a large part of the state that includes the Alaska Peninsula.

"It's not fair chase."

Farley saw the video Friday afternoon. It surprised him, he said.

"I feel personally remiss as the regional biologist that I haven't thought it out that this is what's going on out there," Farley said. "Not until I saw the video did I realize how bad it is. It's not appropriate."

For his part, Jim Hamilton, the man who owns the guiding concession in the park issued a statement saying it was a "very sad day" because the "hunters were participating in a perfectly legal hunt (and) had their entire experience ruined by others who chose to use illegal methods to harass and interfere with their hunt." He also suggested that he might level "criminal and civil charges" against the videographers.

Opening the Cerrado

In the New York Times science section this week, Larry Rohter has a story about Embrapa, Brazil's little-known but highly respected agricultural and livestock research agency. Probably more than any other entity, Embrapa is responsible for having turned Brazil into what former secretary of state Colin Powell aptly called "an agricultural superpower."

It was Embrapa scientists who discovered how to make the acidic soils of the cerrado -- Brazil's vast savanna region -- agriculturally productive. Embrapa also developed strains of soybean -- a temperate-zone cultivar -- that could flourish in the low latitudes. Partly as a result of those efforts, Brazil is now set to overtake the US as the leading grower and exporter of soya in the world. That is a good thing for Brazil's balance of payments and for feeding the world's growing population, but as many environmentalists are aware, it has also led to the clearing and conversion of millions of hectares of biologically diverse savanna and rainforest to cropland.

Last November, I traveled to Brazil to see the situation for myself. You can read the results of my investigation in the current edition of the Virginia Quarterly Review -- an issue of the literary journal devoted entirely to the subject of "South America in the 21st Century." (Compass readers may also be interested in Kelly Hearns' story on natural gas drilling in the Peruvian Amazon.) Here's how my story begins:

We caught a predawn flight out of Cuiabá. The plane headed north in darkness, vaulting over the invisible mesas and out across the vast tablelands of the planalto. The sun came up on a flat expanse of red earth checkered with dense scrubland and enormous clearings, the boundary lines cut as sharp and straight as hedgerows. Only the forested banks of the rivers and streams followed lines at all natural, and yet they seemed all the more alien for it, like weeds in an otherwise immaculate garden.

I hope you're inspired to read the rest (let me warn you: it's long). If you do, I'd be happy (I think) to hear your comments, questions and criticisms.

Now Playing

Into the Wild, Sean Penn's film adaptation of Jon Krakauer's bestselling book opens to wide release this weekend. The story is about one Christopher McCandless, a young man who renounced all family ties and most worldly possessions to wander the continent "in search of raw, transcendent experience." Reviews of the film, in which the American landscape plays a starring role, have been largely positive. But McCandless, who had a tendency for self-dramatization (he re-dubbed himself Alexander Supertramp, for example), can be polarizing. Where some see a romantic seeker in the tradition of Henry Thoreau, John Muir and Everett Ruess, others see a disturbed kid who, like Timothy Treadwell after him, set the stage for his own tragic end. I'd be interested to hear what Compass readers think -- especially those who have seen the movie.

Boom and Bust

Investors have been bullish on ethanol, but the tide seems be turning against them as biofuel stocks are starting to tank. A recent headline in the The Wall Street Journal summed it up: "The Ethanol Boom is Running out of Gas." What happened? On Slate, Daniel Gross blames the government for heavily subsidizing production without also stimulating the infrastructure improvements needed to transport and retail the sudden increase in supply. As of this spring, he reports, there were there were 120 ethanol refineries with a capacity of 6.2 billion gallons per year. Now just try to buy some. Supply is one thing, but minus adequate distribution, well, another boom goes bust.

Cancer Awareness

Yesterday, on Fresh Air, Terry Gross interviewed Dr. Devra Davis about her new book, The Secret History of the War on Cancer. Davis is an epidemiologist currently with the University of Pittsburgh. I had a chance to interview her a few years ago after her first book, When Smoke Ran Like Water, was nominated for a National Book Award. For anyone interested, a transcript of that interview and a review I wrote of the book can be found on National Geographic's Green Guide.

Heated Response

I worried that maybe I was a little hard on Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger's Break Through, but over at Grist, Joe Romm is practically apoplectic in his disdain.

The "breakthrough technology" message is certainly the cleverest one the deniers and delayers have invented -- who wouldn't rather have a techno-fix than higher energy prices? That's why Lomborg endorses it so much in his book, Cool It -- but it is certainly wrong and dangerously so, as I argue at length in my book.

Why two people who say they care about the environment -- Shellenberger & Nordhaus (S&N) -- embrace it, I don't understand. I won't waste time reading their new instant bestseller, unhelpfully titled Break Through, and you shouldn't either (Roger Pielke, Jr., and Gregg Easterbrook endorse it -- 'nuff said).

If you love a good rant, read on. I must say, however, it sounds a little hysterical, not to mention high-handed.

One thing I'll say for S&N, they can sure stir the pot.

The Names

Let's see, first we had climate skeptics (or sceptics, if you're British), terminology that, when applied to, say, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, gave skepticism a bad name. Then when he had deniers, or denialists, but that was tricky, since it calls to mind Holcaust-deniers and since that exists on another moral plane. Now we have doubters, who, according to Joe Romm, tend to be "reasonable people who, unfortunately, are probably beyond persuasion, at least for now." He goes on to say:

Most people — including most doubters — are not in a position to render scientific judgments on climate change. They must decide whom they trust. In general, Denyers are conservatives or libertarians from places like the Competitive Enterprise Institute [them again]. So it is no surprise that doubters, who are also typically conservatives or libertarians, are more willing to put their trust in the Denyers.

Notice Romm uses the unconventional spelling, denyers, in order to avoid the unfair aspersion. He calls Michael Crichton the archetypal Denyer.

More recently, we have delayers -- those who acknowledge global warming as a problem, but not one requiring any urgent measures. Delayers seem to put their faith in future technologies; they're waiting on the hydrogen economy to blossom.

And now we have -- this is new to me -- climate change optimists. Confronting this term for the first time in the Christian Science Monitor, I thought it must refer to folks like Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, who admit that warming is a real problem but insist that it won't be nearly as bad as the scientists/pessimists make it out to be. Or perhaps to those who insist global warming will deliver benefits like, say, greater plant growth and fewer people freezing to death. The newspaper, however, uses it to refer to those people who say global warming is not caused by greenhouse gases but by "complex natural cycles" like sunspots and cosmic rays. I don't see any optimism in that, necessarily. Maybe a better word would be contrarian.

Over at the science blog Prometheus, guests Hans van Storch and Dennis Bray are trying to clarify the taxonomy somewhat in order to better categorize the various flavors of climatologist. They offer a list of four suggested categories: 1) Advocate Pro 2) Advocate Con 3) Concerned Pro 4) Doubters. Then they get into what they call the "three dimensions of scientific perceptions" and lose me entirely.

All of which calls to my mind a line from Easy Rider, in which the hicks regard the hippies. "What is this," says the Sheriff. "Troublemakers?" To which the man says, "You name it, Sheriff, I'll throw rocks at it."