Uncategorized

An environmentalism about human survival

Let's do a thought experiment.

About 251 million years ago, there was an enormous extinction event. No one knows why for sure, but one theory is ... global warming. 90% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates were wiped out. Left behind? Mostly fungus.

If animals, plants, and ecosystems have value in and of themselves, we must view the Permian-Triassic extinction event as an almost unfathomable tragedy, far worse than anything human history has witnessed. It ought to make us tremble, shake faith in a benevolent deity.

But it doesn't. We don't view it as a tragedy that dwarfs any human violence, starvation, or disease, not really. Some might say it is, but I'll venture nobody on the planet feels it to be such.

It's just something that happened. Indeed, though it was the worst, it was but one of seven major extinction events -- including the one we're living through now, the fastest.

Taking on the latest argument from climate do-nothings

OK, I lied, there are two things I wanted to mention from the Revkin interview.

Revkin says this:

When will we begin to apply the hedging behavior that we do routinely in our life like buying fire insurance? You don't buy fire insurance because you know your house is going to burn down. But we do it routinely and our banks require us to do it. When are we going to realize that we need to apply this to other parts of our life?

But then later, says this:

I've written a bit about the economics. The Energy Department cherry-picked the information that allowed President Bush to abandon his campaign pledge to regulate CO2 from power plants. And EPA and others protested this and were ignored. There has been an inadequate focus on the quality of the economic analyses and forecasts. They are highly suspect and have far more wiggle room and error than any climate model.

I would suggest that the first comment attacks a bit of a straw man -- at least in terms of state-of-the-art arguments from climate do-nothings -- and the second one shows why.

Global warming is not a scientific story

I'm a little late getting to this, but everyone should read Paul D. Thacker's interview with New York Times climate journalist Andy Revkin. There's one point in particular I want to comment on:

Has there been anything in your coverage that you think you've missed?

AR: Well ... I think there are ways I could have pushed to get the coverage outside the science section. There were some pretty great pieces on things like the Greenland puzzle and the whole abruptness issue, but those were always Science Times pieces and I guess that is a ghetto, ultimately. A bunch of readers won't get to see it.

This has been a failing not only of climate journalists, but of environmentalists and politicians as well.

Global warming is not a scientific story.

It's a spiritual story, about our relationship to the earth. It's a moral story, about our obligations to our descendents. It's a cultural story, about our consumerism and excess. It's a political story, about wealthy industries holding our democracy hostage. It's an economic story, about the transition to a kind of wealth that does not require waste. It's a sociological and psychological story, about the difficulty of mobilizing vast change in response to long-term challenges. And it's a personal story, about the ways we as individuals can contribute.

Science is not the story, it's the substrate. Science merely establishes that there is a story.

All of us -- climate journalists, environmental advocates, and everyone else -- need to start telling all of these stories, the whole dizzying, overwhelming, galvanizing array of them.

What energy execs are thinking

PriceWaterhouseCoopers surveyed energy execs the world over -- "116 senior executives from leading utilities companies in 43 countries" -- about the future of the energy biz. Two-thirds believe "the industry needs to adopt a 10 year focus on reducing environmental damage, developing new technologies, improving customer service relationships and finding new fuel sources." Eighty percent believe "political and regulatory factors are inhibiting the ability of the sector to respond to these challenges, and shock factors such as supply or environmental crises may need to occur to force change." Forty-two percent believe "the sector is lagging behind in the development of renewable energy sources."

Also widespread was the sentiment that "clean coal" and nuclear power would prove essential in limiting greenhouse-gas emissions.

FYI.

Thomas Edison was a smart guy

Some day some fellow will invent a way of concentrating and storing up sunshine to use instead of this old, absurd Prometheus scheme of fire. ...

This scheme of combustion to get power makes me sick to think of -- it is so wasteful. It is just the old, foolish Prometheus idea, and the father of Prometheus was a baboon.

When we learn how to store electricity, we will cease being apes ourselves; until then we are tailless orangutans. You see, we should utilize natural forces and thus get all of our power. Sunshine is a form of energy, and the winds and the tides are manifestations of energy.

Do we use them? Oh, no! We burn up wood and coal, as renters burn up the front fence for fuel. We live like squatters, not as if we owned the property.

There must surely come a time when heat and power will be stored in unlimited quantities in every community, all gathered by natural forces. Electricity ought to be as cheap as oxygen, for it can not be destroyed.

-- Thomas Edison, 1910

More on the TRI

For more on administration attempts to weaken the Toxics Release Inventory -- and numerous quotes from Gristmill contributor and pundit nonpareil Clark Williams-Derry -- see this story in the Seattle P-I.

(We touched on the TRI in today's Daily Grist, and Clark wrote about it yesterday.)

‘Eco-terrorism’: The scourge of flyer distribution

Laugh? Or cry? Hard to say. Here's a bulletin issued yesterday by the Department of Homeland Security. Among other things, it says this:

Attacks against corporations by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are costly to the targeted company and, over time, can undermine confidence in the economy. ... Although we have no specific, credible information at this time suggesting animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are planning to target known corporations, we encourage private sector owners and operators to remain vigilant, report suspicious activity, and continue to enhance protective measures.

On the TPM Muckraker site, which is hosting the document, Justin Rood adds:

Such radical extremist groups may use several tactics -- each devastating in its own way -- including:

- "organizing protests"
- "flyer distribution"
- "inundating computers with e-mails"
- "tying up phone lines to prevent legitimate calls"
- "sending continuous faxes in order to drain the ink supply from company fax machines"

That's right. If the ink runs out of your fax machine, that means the terrorists have won.

Joking aside, though, Rood makes the relevant point:

Two new exhibits explore the science of climate change

I am a museum geek. And proud of it. I love museums. Especially when they're free and as awesome as the Smithsonian. I have many a fond memory of field trips to D.C., wandering the National Mall and exploring such intriguing pieces as this hugemongous man at the Hirshhorn, Dorothy's ruby slippers at the Museum of American History, and the Hope Diamond at the Museum of Natural History.

So it was with great interest (and nerdy glee) that I read about the Smithsonian opening a pair of exhibits on climate change. Part of the Natural History Museum's "Forces of Change" series, the two exhibitions -- "Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely" and "Atmosphere: Change is in the Air" -- focus on the science of climate change using graphics, film shorts, interactive computer displays, and, uh, not-so-interactive stuffed caribou.

TRI This on for Sighs

EPA unveils mixed news on U.S. toxic emissions The U.S. EPA issued its annual Toxics Release Inventory this week, and it’s a pessimist’s dream. U.S. waterways absorbed 241 million pounds of chemicals in 2004, up 10 percent from the year before. Dioxin, mercury, and PCB releases were down, but (a fact the press failed to […]

Tropic of Answer

South American ecotourism expert Charles Munn answers readers’ questions Readers sent oodles of questions to this week’s InterActivist, Charles Munn, leader of the nonprofit Tropical Nature, which promotes ecotourism and conservation in South America. Is traveling to developing countries exploitative? What are the prospects for budget ecolodges? How does one get started working in ecotourism? […]