Gristmill

McKinstry Company to hire about 500 people in next two to three years

Innovation -- a business model we can believe in.

McKinstry Company is perhaps the most dynamic and interesting company in the Northwest right now. They're earning high-profile attention from President Barack Obama. And even in this economy, they're adding jobs and expanding.

Check it out:

SEATTLE -- Mayor Greg Nickels today presented McKinstry Company with a permit and approved plans for an expansion of its Georgetown facility in south Seattle. The company expects to hire an additional 500 people, a combination of professional and union craftsman, in the next two to three years.

But how can anyone prosper right now?

Well, a big part of the reason for McKinstry's success is that they get it. They get that the current energy economy is broken. They get that we're facing a climate crisis of alarming severity. And they get that a state like Washington shoveled $16 billion out the door in 2008 to pay for fossil-fuel imports.

Consider what David Allen of McKinstry Company said yesterday to the Washington legislature. In testimony before the House Ecology and Parks Committee, he fielded a hostile question about some businesses objecting to the governor's cap-and-invest bill. (Video is here, starting at about 43:15.)

Allen said flatly that McKinstry will be regulated. But he doesn't fear putting a cap on climate pollution.

Allen: "We need to suck it up and get innovative."

The entire conservative media is informed on climate science by the office of James Inhofe

I'm seeing a lot of people passing around a link to this story on TPM, which mocks Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes for saying that the case for man-made warming is "falling apart" but refusing to divulge any of his sources for that seemingly significant piece of info.

At first I just laughed about it, but it occurred to me later that maybe people really don't know the answer to this question -- maybe people really don't know where Barnes is getting his info. The answer is an open secret:

Barnes gets his information on climate change the same place everyone in the right-wing media world gets it: from Marc Morano, the in-house blogger/agitator for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

MacArthur Foundation to fund climate change adaptation network

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation is providing $2 million to help ecosystems and human communities adapt to the effects of climate change, it announced last week. The gift is part of a pledge the foundation made last October to invest $50 million toward preserving biodiversity in the face of changing climates. Biodiversity […]

West Antarctic ice-sheet collapse means more catastrophe for U.S. coasts

The fate of Florida and Louisiana if we're myopic and greedy enough to let the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse (click to see entire SE coast).

A new study in Science finds that sea-level rise from a collapse of the WAIS would likely be 25 percent higher for North America than previously estimated:

The catastrophic increase in sea level, already projected to average between 16 and 17 feet around the world, would be almost 21 feet in such places as Washington, D.C., scientists say, putting it largely underwater. Many coastal areas would be devastated. Much of Southern Florida would disappear.

This article has already started to make news around the globe (Reuters story here). But, frankly, divining the difference between a rise of 16.5 feet (an incalculably devastating catastrophe) and 21 feet (an incalculably devastating catastrophe) is like trying to count the number of devils on a pin.

Nonetheless, WAIS collapse is all but inevitable given business-as-usual warming of 5-7°C. As I explained in my book:

Perhaps the most important, and worrisome, fact about the WAIS is that it is fundamentally far less stable than the Greenland ice sheet because most of it is grounded far below sea level.

For a longer discussion of WAIS and its unique instability, see "Antarctica has warmed significantly over past 50 years."

So what is new in the Science article, "The Sea-Level Fingerprint of West Antarctic Collapse" ($ub. req'd)? Study coauthor and geophysicist Jerry X. Mitrovica, director of the Earth System Evolution Program at the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, explains:

Getting the story straight in Chicago

In the last 20 minutes, I've read the following reports on the Caterpillar oil spill in Chicago:

"U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer William Mitchell ... says it poses no risk to human health but endangers animals." (Detroit Free Press)

"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials say it appears no fish or animals were harmed by the spill. Officials say the oil could harm humans." (All Headline News)

"The EPA says there is no evidence the oil has harmed fish or birds and there is no danger for people." (Associated Press)

Well alright then.

Steven Chu's full global warming interview

I previously blogged on the blunt LAT interview that Energy Secretary Steven Chu gave last week.

Now the reporter, Jim Tankersley, has posted online (here) virtually the entire 40-minute interview, Chu's first since being confirmed as secretary. Tankersley notes that:

Chu isn't a climate scientist -- he's a Nobel-winning physicist -- but he's served on several climate-change commissions, and in his position, will be one of President Obama's point men on the climate issue.

Chu has studied the climate science issue for years and talked to many of the leading climate scientists in coming to his conclusions. His full remarks are well worth reading, as a preview of what to come from team Obama and as an extended breath of fresh air after eight long years of high-level Bush Administration denial and muzzling of U.S. climate scientists:

The players: Obama’s people

Obama’s green team Joe Romm says, “I honestly don’t know if it is politically possible to preserve a livable climate — but if it is, these are the people to make it happen.” I don’t know if I’d go that far, but Obama has certainly put together a team capable of great things. Coordinating is […]

Geoengineering is risky but likely inevitable, so we better start thinking it through

The following is a guest essay from Jamais Cascio, a cross-disciplinary futurist specializing in the interplay between technology and society. He co-founded Worldchanging.com, and now blogs at OpenTheFuture.com.

-----

With the recent release of a detailed comparison between different geoengineering strategies and the launch of a German-Indian joint experiment in ocean-iron-fertilization, the debate over whether geoengineering will have any place in our efforts to combat global warming is one again churning. I've been writing about the geoengineering dilemma since 2005, and Grist's David Roberts -- no big fan of geoengineering -- asked me to give my take on where the issue stands today. My top-line summary?

Geoengineering is risky, likely to provoke international tension, certain to have unanticipated consequences, and pretty much inevitable.

Just to be clear, here's what I want to see happen over the next decade: An aggressive effort to reduce carbon emissions through the adoption of radical levels of energy efficiency, a revolution in how we design our cities and communities, a move away from auto-centered culture, greater localism in agriculture, expanded use of renewable energy systems, and myriad other measures, large and small, that reduce our footprints and improve how we live.

This plan, or something very much like it, is required for us to have the best chance of avoiding disastrous climate disruption. Could we make it happen within the next decade? Definitely. Are we likely to do so? I really want to say yes ... but I can't.

And that's a real problem, because we're not exactly overburdened with global warming response plans that have a solid chance of actually doing something about it in time. We all know that half-measures and denial masquerading as caution certainly won't be enough to avoid disastrous warming; unfortunately, neither will the kinds of ideas still coming out of the world's capitals. Although clearly better than nothing, they simply won't get carbon emissions down far enough fast enough to avoid a catastrophic climate shift.

Here's why: No matter what we do, even if we were to suddenly cut off all anthropogenic sources of carbon right this very second, we are committed to at least another two to three decades of warming, simply due to thermal inertia. Add to that the feedback effects from environmental changes that have already happened: ice cap losses increasing polar ocean temperatures, accelerating overall warming; melting permafrost in Siberia releasing methane, which can be up to 72 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide; overloaded carbon sinks in oceans and soil losing their ability to absorb CO2. These factors combine in a way that could make even our best efforts too slow to avoid disaster.

So what would we do?

Online climate chat: Tuesday, Feb. 10, at 12:45 pm CST

This Tuesday (Feb. 10, 2009) I'll be doing an online chat over on Eric Berger's SciGuy website. We'll be talking about climate, climate change, and everything else climate related. It will be at 12:45 pm CST. If you can't make it, the transcript will be posted (I'll put a link to it in the comments).