Thirteen percent of Americans in a recent survey have never heard of global warming. Is that so terrible? But perhaps the bar has been set so low that many of us are grateful for any sign of life. After all, this is the country where a poll reported not long ago that approximately two-thirds of Americans believe the devil--literally--is wandering the streets of America ... or that more than 40% of the adult population doesn't believe in the theory of evolution. But I think there is now reason to be cautiously optimistic, in the U.S. and elsewhere regarding global warming, energy use and most importantly, raising awareness.
A great many people are now uttering the words "global warming" and "energy." Even the colossal incompetent in the White House has mumbled something about the subject.
Environmental Defense has discussed three areas in particular where energy efficiency can be a focal point for action. These three areas are individual action, transportation and buildings. Yes leadership is still required but it can come from many levels, both public and private, local and national.
Improved building design, the major source of global warming pollution, can cut energy use by some 40%. Individual homeowners as well can make a significant impact on global warming along with saving money by doing such things as improving insulation and using energy efficient appliances.
Transportation represents about one-third of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. According to Environmental Defense, improving vehicle efficiency by some 60% by the year 2020 would reduce our fuel demand by 2.3 million barrels per day. This is what we now import from the Persian Gulf.
The Institute for Local Self-Government says, in reference to the roughly 350 cities participating in the Climate Protection Planning Process, that they will fail to meet their greenhouse gas emission goals if they don't get improved fuel efficiency standards for vehicles or get people to drive less.
Before the stampede sets in to build costly nuclear plants, more primitive coal-fired facilities or drill for oil in every preserve in America, we need to forcefully address real energy efficiency. It's not obscure nor is it fanciful. Do we want to be a California that uses half as much energy per person as Texas because they understand energy efficiency much better than the "lonestar" state? Do we want to see 19 more coal-fired plants built as Texas has proposed or do we want to follow a state like California that has a program to reduce CO2 emissions 20% within the next 13 years?
Certainly, if we want China and India to go beyond their global warming "entitlement" rhetoric, the U.S. needs to demonstrate that it has heard of greenhouse gases and is actually doing something to address global warming--beginning yesterday.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Carbon Constrained World
The leaks to the press indicate that the February summary will state that human activity is strongly responsible: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its report to be issued on the 2nd of February will likely find that we humans are more than marginally contributing to global warming because of the burning of fossil fuels. Of course we shall have to wait a couple of weeks to learn how "unequivocal" the final account is. Governments around the world will probably want the report to reflect their particular views.
Ten large, influential Fortune 500 corporations, along with several well-known environmental organizations, have formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP). They are calling on the U.S. Congress to pass legislation that will cut global warming pollution, and not attempt to postpone it until after the 2008 presidential election. John Rogers, the president and CEO of Duke Energy, and one of the ten companies that are part of US-CAP, announced at a public meeting on Monday that we have to face reality. He said that we're going to be living in a "carbon constrained world." Could we actually be lurching forward?
Even the "dim bulb" that occupies the White House at the present is supposedly going to call for "better" fuel economy in his state-of-the-union message on Tuesday night. Is the rock beginning to move up the hill?
But is it all much too little after so much time of inaction and resistance? Probably so, but even more reason to push for more aggressive achievements while the door remains open. Get busy and get active wherever you are in the world. Don't let the door close again.
Ten large, influential Fortune 500 corporations, along with several well-known environmental organizations, have formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP). They are calling on the U.S. Congress to pass legislation that will cut global warming pollution, and not attempt to postpone it until after the 2008 presidential election. John Rogers, the president and CEO of Duke Energy, and one of the ten companies that are part of US-CAP, announced at a public meeting on Monday that we have to face reality. He said that we're going to be living in a "carbon constrained world." Could we actually be lurching forward?
Even the "dim bulb" that occupies the White House at the present is supposedly going to call for "better" fuel economy in his state-of-the-union message on Tuesday night. Is the rock beginning to move up the hill?
But is it all much too little after so much time of inaction and resistance? Probably so, but even more reason to push for more aggressive achievements while the door remains open. Get busy and get active wherever you are in the world. Don't let the door close again.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Gasping For Air
It's easy to believe that the Iraq conflict is "sucking" oxygen from almost everything in the United States at the moment, as well as slowly spreading across the planet, engulfing more and more countries directly or indirectly. Once again I found myself revisiting The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement website. The movement's motto is "May we live long and die out." It is a site everyone should visit at least once.
Scientists have recently reported that they have strong evidence, because of a South African skull apparently some 36,000 years old, that a clear resemblance exists between this skull and the skulls of other humans that were living in Europe, Asia and Australia at the same time. In other words we all looked pretty much the same back then. The original Homo sapiens--our ancestors--were moving out of Africa quite possibly some 65,000 years ago. New technology made it possible to determine the date of this skull with a margin of error of only three thousand years. So here we are in 2007 with ever improving technology and ever increasing knowledge.
I recall reading some time ago that on average a species goes extinct after approximately 1.4 million years. We humans have been around maybe 200,000 years, give or take. Is it possible we'll get anywhere near the average? May we live long and wisely?
Scientists have recently reported that they have strong evidence, because of a South African skull apparently some 36,000 years old, that a clear resemblance exists between this skull and the skulls of other humans that were living in Europe, Asia and Australia at the same time. In other words we all looked pretty much the same back then. The original Homo sapiens--our ancestors--were moving out of Africa quite possibly some 65,000 years ago. New technology made it possible to determine the date of this skull with a margin of error of only three thousand years. So here we are in 2007 with ever improving technology and ever increasing knowledge.
I recall reading some time ago that on average a species goes extinct after approximately 1.4 million years. We humans have been around maybe 200,000 years, give or take. Is it possible we'll get anywhere near the average? May we live long and wisely?
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Drink Your Hemlock
Children of Men, a movie set in the not to distant future, confronts a serious situation. For whatever reason, women are no longer able to get pregnant, raising an obvious dilemma. No one knows exactly what the reason or reasons might be, but speculation covers such possibilities as pollution, assorted environmental toxins and so forth ... and so forth. Does this fictional movie predicament seem ever so slightly plausible in the actual world we humans inhabit today?
Organic View states that some 40 cosmetic companies use potentially harmful "nanoparticles." These are tiny synthetic particles thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair. Cosmetic companies like this technology because these almost invisible elements are able to carry various vitamins and sunscreen deep into the skin. Of course, nanoparticles can also enter directly into the bloodstream.
The industry naturally states it would not introduce any technology that has the potential of harming humans, presumably because it would be bad for business among other things. This is also the general response that nutritional, food, beverage, seed and pesticide companies offer. They too use nanotechnology.
At the present time the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not have regulations regarding nanotechnology. Cosmetic companies are not required to notify the FDA that they're using nanoparticles. There are as well no pre-approval requirements for what is called "cosmetic formulations."
In the past 60 or so years manufacturers in the United States have introduced an "estimated" 100,000 synthetic compounds. Only about 10% of the synthetic chemicals we currently use have been tested on animals.
We know the umbilical cord sends nourishment to the fetus. It can also deliver synthetic chemicals. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention says the average American now has "116 synthetic chemicals" in his or her body, including dioxin and organochlorine pesticides--not something we probably need. Ah, but progress has its price. And of course an "unfettered" market knows what's best....
Organic View states that some 40 cosmetic companies use potentially harmful "nanoparticles." These are tiny synthetic particles thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair. Cosmetic companies like this technology because these almost invisible elements are able to carry various vitamins and sunscreen deep into the skin. Of course, nanoparticles can also enter directly into the bloodstream.
The industry naturally states it would not introduce any technology that has the potential of harming humans, presumably because it would be bad for business among other things. This is also the general response that nutritional, food, beverage, seed and pesticide companies offer. They too use nanotechnology.
At the present time the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not have regulations regarding nanotechnology. Cosmetic companies are not required to notify the FDA that they're using nanoparticles. There are as well no pre-approval requirements for what is called "cosmetic formulations."
In the past 60 or so years manufacturers in the United States have introduced an "estimated" 100,000 synthetic compounds. Only about 10% of the synthetic chemicals we currently use have been tested on animals.
We know the umbilical cord sends nourishment to the fetus. It can also deliver synthetic chemicals. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention says the average American now has "116 synthetic chemicals" in his or her body, including dioxin and organochlorine pesticides--not something we probably need. Ah, but progress has its price. And of course an "unfettered" market knows what's best....
Friday, December 22, 2006
Strolling With Trees
I was reminded of Nathaniel Philbrick's book Mayflower recently, when I read an article about changes the U.S. Forest Service had made concerning national forests and grasslands.
When the Puritans arrived in November of 1620 on a cold, bleak day, in what is today the area of Cape Cod, they observed there were far more trees than what they'd ever seen in Holland or the coast of England. And they hadn't yet discovered the "real" forests that once covered much of North America.
The Forest Service now says that the public will no longer be able to appeal "long-term plans" but will be able to be involved and participate in the planning process from its beginning. It's difficult to say exactly what this means, but given George Bush's environmental record, a healthy skepticism is not unwarranted. It would be wise to let the new Democratic controlled Congress in January know we're not supporting tree farms for the timber industry nor suburban housing on the nation's grasslands.
There is some good news, apparently, regarding forests worldwide. According to a study done within the National Academy of Science, we've had a significant "reforestation" in the past 15 years in almost half of the countries with the most forests.
The study also seems to confirm the connection between general forest improvement and a nation's standard of living, agricultural practices, education and competent government.
At the same time, tropical forests are being destroyed in various developing countries because of greed, corruption, poverty, ignorance and the lack of competent government. We in the developed world have a clear responsibility as consumers--if nothing else. We cannot remain passive bystanders and just look for what is called "cheap." Nothing ultimately is.
While I enjoy hiking and climbing, there are some practical reasons why we want healthy forests everywhere on this planet. Beyond the obvious fact that trees absorb carbon dioxide, forests also encourage biodiversity and slow erosion, essential to our well being as humans. Healthy forests also provide clear economic benefits, whether it's lumber for building homes or paper we use for any number of things.
Find some woods, take a walk and leave the cell phone at home. Be grateful you can stroll with a tree.
When the Puritans arrived in November of 1620 on a cold, bleak day, in what is today the area of Cape Cod, they observed there were far more trees than what they'd ever seen in Holland or the coast of England. And they hadn't yet discovered the "real" forests that once covered much of North America.
The Forest Service now says that the public will no longer be able to appeal "long-term plans" but will be able to be involved and participate in the planning process from its beginning. It's difficult to say exactly what this means, but given George Bush's environmental record, a healthy skepticism is not unwarranted. It would be wise to let the new Democratic controlled Congress in January know we're not supporting tree farms for the timber industry nor suburban housing on the nation's grasslands.
There is some good news, apparently, regarding forests worldwide. According to a study done within the National Academy of Science, we've had a significant "reforestation" in the past 15 years in almost half of the countries with the most forests.
The study also seems to confirm the connection between general forest improvement and a nation's standard of living, agricultural practices, education and competent government.
At the same time, tropical forests are being destroyed in various developing countries because of greed, corruption, poverty, ignorance and the lack of competent government. We in the developed world have a clear responsibility as consumers--if nothing else. We cannot remain passive bystanders and just look for what is called "cheap." Nothing ultimately is.
While I enjoy hiking and climbing, there are some practical reasons why we want healthy forests everywhere on this planet. Beyond the obvious fact that trees absorb carbon dioxide, forests also encourage biodiversity and slow erosion, essential to our well being as humans. Healthy forests also provide clear economic benefits, whether it's lumber for building homes or paper we use for any number of things.
Find some woods, take a walk and leave the cell phone at home. Be grateful you can stroll with a tree.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Capping or Taxing
Capping and taxing our way to carbon dioxide reductions, the main greenhouse gas, are words now heard more often, even on the silliest cable news station. But that's probably a good thing because we're actually talking about global warming and that, it seems to me, is a very--very--good thing.
This subject has to go way beyond corporate board rooms, academic institutions and most politicians. A "moderately concerned" public here in the U.S. and presumably in the rest of the world need to understand what they can do individually and on a community level, which in the short to intermediate term may be far more important for greenhouse gas reduction than the "big" concepts.
Ever so briefly, capping refers to a cap-and-trade structure, whereby limits are place on emissions. Companies that are able to go below their emission goals can sell "permits" to those companies that could not. Taxing is a straightforward levy that would set a price (a tax) on each ton of carbon dioxide that is discharged into the air. Each side has its advocates and each method has its shortcomings, political as well as technological.
But returning to the individual and the community, it's worth looking at what an increasing number of cities are doing in the United States. Because of the astounding negligence at the national level these past several years, cities have taken the lead in addressing climate change.
Some 350 cities throughout the U.S., encompassing more than 40 million people, have adopted a "climate protection planning process." The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by studying and developing comprehensive plans for such things as energy use, transportation, waste management and overall environmental direction. Specific targets are established.
A central component of these plans is setting up community outreach programs. What can individuals and neighborhoods do? It could be a recycling program or merely replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lights. It could be a neighborhood association newsletter or quartely community meetings. But above all it educates people and shows them ways to participate and make a difference.
This is related to efficient energy use. McKinsey Global Institute, a research organization, believes that within some 14 years the annual growth rate of energy demand worldwide could go from approximately 2.2% to about 0.6%. This is not by discovering some new breakthroughs but by using existing technology, whether it's an energy-efficient appliance, insulating one's home or improved commercial building design.
A good place to begin is at the local level. In Kansas City, where I live, our curbside recycling program--in its first year--saved an estimated 156 thousand barrels of oil and possibly enough electricity to run almost 8 thousand homes for a year.
Of course we need global standards. Clearly countries like China and India cannot get some infantile "free" pass. And most definitely the voters in the United States are going to have to take some real responsibility for their actions, beginning by electing competent political representatives.
When General Motors thinks it still makes sense to advertise the Hummer to rich halfwits on Sunday football games, we still have a considerable ways to go. But it does however start with one light bulb at a time. Get busy in your community. Locate the people that can conceive of something different.
This subject has to go way beyond corporate board rooms, academic institutions and most politicians. A "moderately concerned" public here in the U.S. and presumably in the rest of the world need to understand what they can do individually and on a community level, which in the short to intermediate term may be far more important for greenhouse gas reduction than the "big" concepts.
Ever so briefly, capping refers to a cap-and-trade structure, whereby limits are place on emissions. Companies that are able to go below their emission goals can sell "permits" to those companies that could not. Taxing is a straightforward levy that would set a price (a tax) on each ton of carbon dioxide that is discharged into the air. Each side has its advocates and each method has its shortcomings, political as well as technological.
But returning to the individual and the community, it's worth looking at what an increasing number of cities are doing in the United States. Because of the astounding negligence at the national level these past several years, cities have taken the lead in addressing climate change.
Some 350 cities throughout the U.S., encompassing more than 40 million people, have adopted a "climate protection planning process." The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by studying and developing comprehensive plans for such things as energy use, transportation, waste management and overall environmental direction. Specific targets are established.
A central component of these plans is setting up community outreach programs. What can individuals and neighborhoods do? It could be a recycling program or merely replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lights. It could be a neighborhood association newsletter or quartely community meetings. But above all it educates people and shows them ways to participate and make a difference.
This is related to efficient energy use. McKinsey Global Institute, a research organization, believes that within some 14 years the annual growth rate of energy demand worldwide could go from approximately 2.2% to about 0.6%. This is not by discovering some new breakthroughs but by using existing technology, whether it's an energy-efficient appliance, insulating one's home or improved commercial building design.
A good place to begin is at the local level. In Kansas City, where I live, our curbside recycling program--in its first year--saved an estimated 156 thousand barrels of oil and possibly enough electricity to run almost 8 thousand homes for a year.
Of course we need global standards. Clearly countries like China and India cannot get some infantile "free" pass. And most definitely the voters in the United States are going to have to take some real responsibility for their actions, beginning by electing competent political representatives.
When General Motors thinks it still makes sense to advertise the Hummer to rich halfwits on Sunday football games, we still have a considerable ways to go. But it does however start with one light bulb at a time. Get busy in your community. Locate the people that can conceive of something different.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Fork in Road
How many times can one individual, one city or one nation reach a fork in the road and have to make a choice about which way to go? I haven't the faintest idea. But those "forks" appear for almost all of us sometime in our existence. Times are starting to appear interesting in the U.S. at the moment, once again. I'm talking about climate change and global warming. What decisions will we end up making? They will likely have an impact on the rest of the world.
We've had a series of reports, commissions and recommendations over the past several months, from various countries and international agencies, outlining what could happen if we don't address global warming. Even some of the global warming skeptics have become less shrill.
Intimately connected with the complexity of global warming issues is the so-called "peak oil" debate. The consensus, as far as I can tell, is that we agree we're going to run out of oil in the not-to-distant future. The argument centers on just when this "future" might occur. The optimists talk about some 100 years from now and the pessimists speak about the next 10 to 20 years. But clearly oil has made modern civilization possible. With very little research it is possible to discover just how many everyday items are derived from petroleum.
An interesting aspect of this "black gold" is the E.R.O.I. or the energy-return-on-investment. It looks like it's going to get more and more expensive to extract it. We're going to have to spend more energy to get more energy, because we likely have gotten most of the accessible oil and gas fields, and now it will become much more difficult and more expensive to extract. More money spent on energy probably means less money for things like education and other areas we undoubtedly consider essential to our welfare.
Cutler Cleveland, an energy scientist at Boston University, estimates that over the past thirty years investment return on oil and natural gas fell from "25 to 1 to about 15 to 1." If we try to extract oil from tar sands, for example, the return could be only 4 to 1 because of the conversion expenses.
Last but certainly not least is coal. The United States has a lot of it and it's relatively cheap. But until we learn how to bury its high carbon dioxide emissions, coal is not going to be our salvation. We can observe China right now and see the extreme pollution caused by the country's frantic construction of coal-fired power plants.
So what's happening right now? The moderately good news is that the Democratic Party controls Congress. But it most definitely remains to be seen what the Democrats will do. At the very least, however, they should be able to stop or slow down the Bush thug's most egregious environmental behavior. And there is a presidential election in 2008.
California with the world's sixth-largest economy has established caps on global warming pollution, requiring a 25% cut in greenhouse gases by 2020. This will have an impact throughout the U.S. and likely with other countries that want to do business with California.
The Bush--yes George Bush--administration is going to establish, after many years of procrastination, energy efficiency standards for numerous commercial and residential appliances, which will likely save significant amounts of energy.
Some 300 cities in the United States have adopted a Climate Protection Planning Process, covering approximately 40 million people. These cities have agreed to develop a specific procedure for assessing energy and transportation needs and overall environmental direction.
More and more business leaders are examining how climate change will affect financial markets and economic development. For example, this Thursday the University of Chicago Business School is hosting a conference on Midwest development. The Midwest, in addition to agriculture, has high concentrations of automotive companies, insurance and power generation. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 resulted in some $45 billion of insured losses. Changing weather conditions and possibly shorter growing seasons in the central part of the U.S. could have a significant impact on agriculture production--which certainly could affect the availability of food worldwide.
We have arrived it seems to me at another fork in the road. We have another chance to make a choice. Stupidity and lazy indifference may again prevail or we may just figure it out this time. Getting organized and getting informed are good first steps. How many chances do we get?
We've had a series of reports, commissions and recommendations over the past several months, from various countries and international agencies, outlining what could happen if we don't address global warming. Even some of the global warming skeptics have become less shrill.
Intimately connected with the complexity of global warming issues is the so-called "peak oil" debate. The consensus, as far as I can tell, is that we agree we're going to run out of oil in the not-to-distant future. The argument centers on just when this "future" might occur. The optimists talk about some 100 years from now and the pessimists speak about the next 10 to 20 years. But clearly oil has made modern civilization possible. With very little research it is possible to discover just how many everyday items are derived from petroleum.
An interesting aspect of this "black gold" is the E.R.O.I. or the energy-return-on-investment. It looks like it's going to get more and more expensive to extract it. We're going to have to spend more energy to get more energy, because we likely have gotten most of the accessible oil and gas fields, and now it will become much more difficult and more expensive to extract. More money spent on energy probably means less money for things like education and other areas we undoubtedly consider essential to our welfare.
Cutler Cleveland, an energy scientist at Boston University, estimates that over the past thirty years investment return on oil and natural gas fell from "25 to 1 to about 15 to 1." If we try to extract oil from tar sands, for example, the return could be only 4 to 1 because of the conversion expenses.
Last but certainly not least is coal. The United States has a lot of it and it's relatively cheap. But until we learn how to bury its high carbon dioxide emissions, coal is not going to be our salvation. We can observe China right now and see the extreme pollution caused by the country's frantic construction of coal-fired power plants.
So what's happening right now? The moderately good news is that the Democratic Party controls Congress. But it most definitely remains to be seen what the Democrats will do. At the very least, however, they should be able to stop or slow down the Bush thug's most egregious environmental behavior. And there is a presidential election in 2008.
California with the world's sixth-largest economy has established caps on global warming pollution, requiring a 25% cut in greenhouse gases by 2020. This will have an impact throughout the U.S. and likely with other countries that want to do business with California.
The Bush--yes George Bush--administration is going to establish, after many years of procrastination, energy efficiency standards for numerous commercial and residential appliances, which will likely save significant amounts of energy.
Some 300 cities in the United States have adopted a Climate Protection Planning Process, covering approximately 40 million people. These cities have agreed to develop a specific procedure for assessing energy and transportation needs and overall environmental direction.
More and more business leaders are examining how climate change will affect financial markets and economic development. For example, this Thursday the University of Chicago Business School is hosting a conference on Midwest development. The Midwest, in addition to agriculture, has high concentrations of automotive companies, insurance and power generation. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 resulted in some $45 billion of insured losses. Changing weather conditions and possibly shorter growing seasons in the central part of the U.S. could have a significant impact on agriculture production--which certainly could affect the availability of food worldwide.
We have arrived it seems to me at another fork in the road. We have another chance to make a choice. Stupidity and lazy indifference may again prevail or we may just figure it out this time. Getting organized and getting informed are good first steps. How many chances do we get?
Monday, November 20, 2006
Searching For Wisdom
What happened in the midterm elections in the United States a couple of weeks ago? Will it be good for the environment? Do we know? Of course we don't really know.
The American electorate managed to wake up from its torpor (a significant problem) long enough to give control of Congress to the Democratic Party. But the party that lost control (Republican) was and is one of the most incompetent and possibly corrupt political parties in American history; a party that has become little more than an open sewer and finds rational thinking blasphemy. We can, however, be grateful for small favors, for a short while. Now, if the man-child playing President of the United States would vanish....
Kofi Annan, Secretary of the United Nations, remarked at the climate conference in Nairobi that there was "a frightening lack of leadership" in the world community.
REFOCUS, an international renewable energy magazine, said the U.S. is now the "most attractive country for renewable energy investment."
The chairman of the Global Carbon Project reported recently that CO2 emissions are "spiraling out of control." We may not be able to avoid some of the "bad" scenarios.
My city has established a "climate protection planning process," which includes benchmarks as well as public outreach and education.
So of course we don't really know--yet. Don't stop telling me that we have a new widget to help "bury" CO2, but even better, tell me there are ten more people that know what global warming is, what causes it and--best of all--know how to motivate and influence government action at the local level, the national level, and the international level. Keep searching for wisdom.
The American electorate managed to wake up from its torpor (a significant problem) long enough to give control of Congress to the Democratic Party. But the party that lost control (Republican) was and is one of the most incompetent and possibly corrupt political parties in American history; a party that has become little more than an open sewer and finds rational thinking blasphemy. We can, however, be grateful for small favors, for a short while. Now, if the man-child playing President of the United States would vanish....
Kofi Annan, Secretary of the United Nations, remarked at the climate conference in Nairobi that there was "a frightening lack of leadership" in the world community.
REFOCUS, an international renewable energy magazine, said the U.S. is now the "most attractive country for renewable energy investment."
The chairman of the Global Carbon Project reported recently that CO2 emissions are "spiraling out of control." We may not be able to avoid some of the "bad" scenarios.
My city has established a "climate protection planning process," which includes benchmarks as well as public outreach and education.
So of course we don't really know--yet. Don't stop telling me that we have a new widget to help "bury" CO2, but even better, tell me there are ten more people that know what global warming is, what causes it and--best of all--know how to motivate and influence government action at the local level, the national level, and the international level. Keep searching for wisdom.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
One Percent Solution
If the world takes action now on global greenhouse gas emissions it will cost 1% of Gross Domestic Product. This in the conclusion of the recently released Stern Report requested by the British government. The release of the report was met by both interest and skepticism along with the usual "calls" for action among those that pay attention to such matters. For the world at large it went unnoticed.
Possibly the most important sentence in the entire 600-page report came at the beginning of chapter 21: "Public awareness and support is crucial for encouraging and sustaining cooperation." Far more critical than dedicated environmentalists, intelligent politicians and enlightened business people is a citizenry that has a reasonable understanding of the problem coupled with a willingness to make changes both individually and collectively. And therefore...?
Based on any number of facts the world is at the moment largely clueless. Global subsidies for energy research are some $10 billion annually, while subsidies for fossil fuel extraction runs about $250 billion annually. Only Japan among the world's economic powers has increased funding for energy research in recent decades.
The United States, which is still the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, is close to being "criminally" negligent. The American government spends around $3 billion per year on all
energy development. In contrast, the U.S. spends some $75 billion on military research.
Relying on private enterprise is largely a feverish hallucination. It is not that business is not crucial in dealing with global warming and developing various technologies, but the private market is simply not big enough nor can it be relied upon for a long period of time. Its motivation is profit, usually short-term. Private investors won't and most cannot afford to go much beyond five or six years before the big return on their investment is demanded.
Dealing with greenhouse gases, finding alternative energy sources, and developing technologies such as drought resistant crops will be long-term, expensive, and require coordinated global action. The United Nations reported just recently that greenhouse gases reached a "record high" in 2005. The Stern Report stated that global costs could go up to 20% of GDP over the next ten to twenty years if the world does not act now. Possibly more than 200 million people, again according to the Stern Report, could end up becoming refugees because of droughts or floods, let alone failed states and civil wars. So therefore...?
Many years ago I first heard the expression "luck is the residue of hard work." We are all going to need some luck and perhaps a lot of hard work. The developed world, especially the United States, has to change drastically--and yeah, that's political, on a national scale, and not in some distant future. So dear environmentalists (the few), politicians (the few) and business people (the few) get busy and fast. Most people are clueless. That's the really big problem.
A lot of the "developing" world believes it's entitled--read China and India for the moment--but they're not. The good news is that even the kleptocracy in say China now has an inkling that the "good" life will never arrive if you only create an open sewer.
The Stern Report like all the rest will end up gathering dust on some shelf unless the few realize the fight's going to take place on the street, literally and figuratively. How badly do we want to take care of the only real home we will ever have?
Possibly the most important sentence in the entire 600-page report came at the beginning of chapter 21: "Public awareness and support is crucial for encouraging and sustaining cooperation." Far more critical than dedicated environmentalists, intelligent politicians and enlightened business people is a citizenry that has a reasonable understanding of the problem coupled with a willingness to make changes both individually and collectively. And therefore...?
Based on any number of facts the world is at the moment largely clueless. Global subsidies for energy research are some $10 billion annually, while subsidies for fossil fuel extraction runs about $250 billion annually. Only Japan among the world's economic powers has increased funding for energy research in recent decades.
The United States, which is still the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, is close to being "criminally" negligent. The American government spends around $3 billion per year on all
energy development. In contrast, the U.S. spends some $75 billion on military research.
Relying on private enterprise is largely a feverish hallucination. It is not that business is not crucial in dealing with global warming and developing various technologies, but the private market is simply not big enough nor can it be relied upon for a long period of time. Its motivation is profit, usually short-term. Private investors won't and most cannot afford to go much beyond five or six years before the big return on their investment is demanded.
Dealing with greenhouse gases, finding alternative energy sources, and developing technologies such as drought resistant crops will be long-term, expensive, and require coordinated global action. The United Nations reported just recently that greenhouse gases reached a "record high" in 2005. The Stern Report stated that global costs could go up to 20% of GDP over the next ten to twenty years if the world does not act now. Possibly more than 200 million people, again according to the Stern Report, could end up becoming refugees because of droughts or floods, let alone failed states and civil wars. So therefore...?
Many years ago I first heard the expression "luck is the residue of hard work." We are all going to need some luck and perhaps a lot of hard work. The developed world, especially the United States, has to change drastically--and yeah, that's political, on a national scale, and not in some distant future. So dear environmentalists (the few), politicians (the few) and business people (the few) get busy and fast. Most people are clueless. That's the really big problem.
A lot of the "developing" world believes it's entitled--read China and India for the moment--but they're not. The good news is that even the kleptocracy in say China now has an inkling that the "good" life will never arrive if you only create an open sewer.
The Stern Report like all the rest will end up gathering dust on some shelf unless the few realize the fight's going to take place on the street, literally and figuratively. How badly do we want to take care of the only real home we will ever have?
Sunday, October 22, 2006
All Kinds of Energy
The Worldwatch Institute (www.worldwatch.org) has released a report entitled "The Renewable Path to Energy Security." It's a comprehensive overview, covering everything from biofuels to geothermal to marine energy. It is a report that every non-expert should at least glance through.
What continues to be frustrating is that a great deal of research in renewable energy sources has been going on for some time in both the public and private sector, yet policy makers worldwide have been, to various degrees, almost lackadaisical in their responses to both the potential problems of relying on fossil fuels, as well as the opportunities that renewables present.
In the United States, certainly in the last six years, the government has been almost criminally negligent--to put it kindly. While we Americans are supposedly in some global battle against the forces of "darkness," the U.S. imports about 13 million barrels of oil each day from some not so stable countries. This represents more than 60% of our total daily production. It's also costing us approximately $300 billion annually.
This is not to say the world has been standing still. The second-largest industry in the world--the insurance industry--has decided that stupidity may be too costly. The industry has slowly changed how it evaluates "risk-assessment." It more and more, for example, assesses how future climate change models may look, and less on current weather patterns. As well, the insurance industry is doing such things as cutting premiums for "green" buildings and giving discounts to people driving hybrid cars. As the insurance industry modifies its priorities other sectors will likely have to follow.
Right now global investments in renewable energy is some $38 billion. It is still a proverbial drop-in-the-bucket but continues to grow. Worldwide, wind and solar power are the fastest growing energy sources.
Jobs in the fossil fuel sector are expected to show little growth, in part because of automation, while significant employment growth is expected in the area of renewable energy over the next 20 years.
But we still have the "yeah, but" reaction more often than not and deservedly so. Until we have a serious nation-state response--meaning a political will--which ultimately means a real funding commitment, leadership, and education, we're indulging in a grand delusion. A survey taken not long ago in the United States indicated that nearly 75% of those polled believed global warming was a serious problem. Yet, this same percentage was equally at a loss as to what causes global warming. Perhaps Europe and Japan are not quite so uncertain but....
Equally important, until we have a coordinated international strategy, which must include China and India, we will remain locked in a narrow "free" market fantasy. So once again it comes down to the familiar question. What are we willing to do?
What continues to be frustrating is that a great deal of research in renewable energy sources has been going on for some time in both the public and private sector, yet policy makers worldwide have been, to various degrees, almost lackadaisical in their responses to both the potential problems of relying on fossil fuels, as well as the opportunities that renewables present.
In the United States, certainly in the last six years, the government has been almost criminally negligent--to put it kindly. While we Americans are supposedly in some global battle against the forces of "darkness," the U.S. imports about 13 million barrels of oil each day from some not so stable countries. This represents more than 60% of our total daily production. It's also costing us approximately $300 billion annually.
This is not to say the world has been standing still. The second-largest industry in the world--the insurance industry--has decided that stupidity may be too costly. The industry has slowly changed how it evaluates "risk-assessment." It more and more, for example, assesses how future climate change models may look, and less on current weather patterns. As well, the insurance industry is doing such things as cutting premiums for "green" buildings and giving discounts to people driving hybrid cars. As the insurance industry modifies its priorities other sectors will likely have to follow.
Right now global investments in renewable energy is some $38 billion. It is still a proverbial drop-in-the-bucket but continues to grow. Worldwide, wind and solar power are the fastest growing energy sources.
Jobs in the fossil fuel sector are expected to show little growth, in part because of automation, while significant employment growth is expected in the area of renewable energy over the next 20 years.
But we still have the "yeah, but" reaction more often than not and deservedly so. Until we have a serious nation-state response--meaning a political will--which ultimately means a real funding commitment, leadership, and education, we're indulging in a grand delusion. A survey taken not long ago in the United States indicated that nearly 75% of those polled believed global warming was a serious problem. Yet, this same percentage was equally at a loss as to what causes global warming. Perhaps Europe and Japan are not quite so uncertain but....
Equally important, until we have a coordinated international strategy, which must include China and India, we will remain locked in a narrow "free" market fantasy. So once again it comes down to the familiar question. What are we willing to do?
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Painted Technology
It came to mind after reading an article by Michael Pollan in The New York Times.
A couple of weeks ago I hiked through the Painted Hills (part of the National Park Service) in eastern Oregon. It's a remarkable sight; it looks like a vast watercolor landscape. The hills are of various hues, colors sometime blending together and sometimes separate and distinct.
The reasons for this phenomenon are complex. The Painted Hills are made up of layers of hard claystones that were formed some 33 million years ago. Along with variations in moisture and light reflection, mineral elements such as Magnesium, Iron, Potassium, Silicon, Phosphorous and other elements are mixed together. It is as inspiring as anything any human artist could conceive of.
Three days before I left for Oregon I wrote a column for the Kansas City Star on the upcoming November congressional election and the growing "rot" in America. It does connect, no matter how tenuous it first might appear.
Pollan's article entitled "The Vegetable-Industrial Complex" (10/15/06) discusses the outbreak of E. coli last month where some 200 Americans in some 26 states became sick from eating packaged spinach.
It is not the dreary news that food in America (meat and vegetables) has become industrialized and increasingly susceptible to more disasters and diseases, but Pollan's contention that "it's easier to find a technological fix than to address the root causes of such a problem. This has always been the genius of industrial capitalism--to take its failings and turn them into exciting new business opportunities."
If we Americans--out of indifference, avoidance or ignorance--choose to let our food be controlled by a handful of conglomerates, than we ought to be prepared for the consequences.
Animals crammed together on cement floors, standing all day in manure, and fed a steady diet of antibiotics are not "Little House On the Prairie." If we don't mind our vegetables ending up in large food processing factories with bacterial contamination more and more likely, then sit back and enjoy. Only about 70 million Americans each year get sick, or end up in the hospital--or die from the food they eat. But national regulations may not be the answer either.... Michael Pollan's article is worth reading.
A visit to the Painted Hills is worth doing but sadly most people won't be able to. This small section of the United States tells us a lot about the planet we live on and our place on it. It's deserving of preservation. Industrial agriculture also tells a lot about what kind of people we've become--something not worth preserving.
A couple of weeks ago I hiked through the Painted Hills (part of the National Park Service) in eastern Oregon. It's a remarkable sight; it looks like a vast watercolor landscape. The hills are of various hues, colors sometime blending together and sometimes separate and distinct.
The reasons for this phenomenon are complex. The Painted Hills are made up of layers of hard claystones that were formed some 33 million years ago. Along with variations in moisture and light reflection, mineral elements such as Magnesium, Iron, Potassium, Silicon, Phosphorous and other elements are mixed together. It is as inspiring as anything any human artist could conceive of.
Three days before I left for Oregon I wrote a column for the Kansas City Star on the upcoming November congressional election and the growing "rot" in America. It does connect, no matter how tenuous it first might appear.
Pollan's article entitled "The Vegetable-Industrial Complex" (10/15/06) discusses the outbreak of E. coli last month where some 200 Americans in some 26 states became sick from eating packaged spinach.
It is not the dreary news that food in America (meat and vegetables) has become industrialized and increasingly susceptible to more disasters and diseases, but Pollan's contention that "it's easier to find a technological fix than to address the root causes of such a problem. This has always been the genius of industrial capitalism--to take its failings and turn them into exciting new business opportunities."
If we Americans--out of indifference, avoidance or ignorance--choose to let our food be controlled by a handful of conglomerates, than we ought to be prepared for the consequences.
Animals crammed together on cement floors, standing all day in manure, and fed a steady diet of antibiotics are not "Little House On the Prairie." If we don't mind our vegetables ending up in large food processing factories with bacterial contamination more and more likely, then sit back and enjoy. Only about 70 million Americans each year get sick, or end up in the hospital--or die from the food they eat. But national regulations may not be the answer either.... Michael Pollan's article is worth reading.
A visit to the Painted Hills is worth doing but sadly most people won't be able to. This small section of the United States tells us a lot about the planet we live on and our place on it. It's deserving of preservation. Industrial agriculture also tells a lot about what kind of people we've become--something not worth preserving.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Reading Signs--or Not
A species in transition ... hiring "forest people" for an ecotourism experiment ... the Ogallala aquifer running out of water: These are stories that appeared in the news in September. They are accounts from different parts of the world, seemingly unrelated, and yet are connected in important ways.
They are stories that have a lot to do with our ability to think critically as well as our willingness to conceive of something else. These are also tales about making choices--or not making them.
Paleontologists in Ethiopia believe they may have discovered a 3.3 million-year-old fossil of a child, estimated to be about 3 years old when she died. The child is a member of the Australopithecus afarensis species.
What is of possible major significance is that the scientists think that this child represents a "species in transition." The lower limbs are similar to early humans, but the upper limbs are more like a gorilla. Iron Age religious tales seem to pale in comparison when we consider the marvelous possibility of where we humans may have evolved. The scientists named the fossil Selam. The word means "peace" in the Amharic language.
Now try to imagine--not the beginning of the Neolithic Era--some 10,000 years ago, but the origins of our species Homo sapien, 100,000 years ago--200,000 years ago? And now go back one million years, two million years....
Attempts at ecotourism in third world countries have often been controversial. Who actually benefits? Do the flora and fauna thrive? Does the fact that rich first-world residents paying a lot of money to visit the "natural" world actually benefit indigenous people and the wildlife, and not just some corrupt elite running the country?
In one of the poorest parts of the world in central Africa, where life expectancy does not reach 40, three countries, the Central African Republic, Cameroon, and the Congo Republic are establishing one gigantic national preserve larger than the state of Rhode Island. The World Wildlife Fund is guiding its development. The local Bayaka Pygmies have been hired as trackers and guides. The goal is sustainable development that can benefit the people that live in the area over a long period of time, as well as protect rare and endangered species like the western lowland gorilla. Now go back one million years, two million years...
The natural Ogallala aquifer in Western Kansas is getting low on water. This is part of the United States called the "Wheat Belt," in a country that has been the breadbasket of the world. But energy is getting more and more expensive, and so is water.
Wheat was the crop that was planted, in the perfect location, when the homesteaders first arrived in the 1860s. It thrived in the hot central plains on little water. But over the past twenty or thirty years farmers have moved to corn and soybeans, used primarily for such things as animal feed and high fructose syrups. There was money to be made; unfortunately, corn and soybeans need twice the amount of water as wheat--but the Japanese and others developed a taste for American beef.
What choices will ultimately be made? At what point will the choices be limited? How well will we conceive of something else? Imagine a dry aquifer in Western Kansas. What was it like one million years ago, two million years....
They are stories that have a lot to do with our ability to think critically as well as our willingness to conceive of something else. These are also tales about making choices--or not making them.
Paleontologists in Ethiopia believe they may have discovered a 3.3 million-year-old fossil of a child, estimated to be about 3 years old when she died. The child is a member of the Australopithecus afarensis species.
What is of possible major significance is that the scientists think that this child represents a "species in transition." The lower limbs are similar to early humans, but the upper limbs are more like a gorilla. Iron Age religious tales seem to pale in comparison when we consider the marvelous possibility of where we humans may have evolved. The scientists named the fossil Selam. The word means "peace" in the Amharic language.
Now try to imagine--not the beginning of the Neolithic Era--some 10,000 years ago, but the origins of our species Homo sapien, 100,000 years ago--200,000 years ago? And now go back one million years, two million years....
Attempts at ecotourism in third world countries have often been controversial. Who actually benefits? Do the flora and fauna thrive? Does the fact that rich first-world residents paying a lot of money to visit the "natural" world actually benefit indigenous people and the wildlife, and not just some corrupt elite running the country?
In one of the poorest parts of the world in central Africa, where life expectancy does not reach 40, three countries, the Central African Republic, Cameroon, and the Congo Republic are establishing one gigantic national preserve larger than the state of Rhode Island. The World Wildlife Fund is guiding its development. The local Bayaka Pygmies have been hired as trackers and guides. The goal is sustainable development that can benefit the people that live in the area over a long period of time, as well as protect rare and endangered species like the western lowland gorilla. Now go back one million years, two million years...
The natural Ogallala aquifer in Western Kansas is getting low on water. This is part of the United States called the "Wheat Belt," in a country that has been the breadbasket of the world. But energy is getting more and more expensive, and so is water.
Wheat was the crop that was planted, in the perfect location, when the homesteaders first arrived in the 1860s. It thrived in the hot central plains on little water. But over the past twenty or thirty years farmers have moved to corn and soybeans, used primarily for such things as animal feed and high fructose syrups. There was money to be made; unfortunately, corn and soybeans need twice the amount of water as wheat--but the Japanese and others developed a taste for American beef.
What choices will ultimately be made? At what point will the choices be limited? How well will we conceive of something else? Imagine a dry aquifer in Western Kansas. What was it like one million years ago, two million years....
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Yedoma is Here
Have you heard of yedoma? Outside of those folks that study ice cores and worry about melting permafrost (the fragile layer of frozen soil found in arctic and some subarctic regions) on this planet, most of us would likely have no reason to know anything about it. It is, however, a subject we may want to acquire some basic knowledge about.
In the course of coming up with some ideas for a piece I have to submit in a couple of weeks to the Kansas City Star, I read a couple of articles regarding a study published in the journal Nature, and a European-sponsored project regarding Antarctic "ice coring."
It seems that scientists have been able to get sample ice cores that go back some 800,000 years. Air bubbles trapped within these "cores" can tell scientists the amount of greenhouse gas concentrations over nearly a million-year period. The long and short of it is that carbon dioxide levels are a good deal higher than at any time in 800,000 years.
Possibly even more worrisome is that the increasing melting of the permafrost, especially in Siberia, an area covering some 10 million square kilometers, is not only releasing more CO2 but also Methane. Methane is an especially nasty "greenhouse gas." While methane disperses faster than carbon dioxide, some 10 years versus 100 years for CO2, it is about 23 times more powerful in trapping heat than CO2.
Methane is being released from the permafrost much, much faster than expected. Greenhouse gases and rising temperatures are connected and self-perpetuating: more greenhouse gases mean more melting, leading to increasing amounts of green house gases, and so forth.
Yedoma is a type of permafrost located primarily in parts of Siberia, and mostly lies under lakes. What is of interest here is that the melting permafrost releases methane, whereas under dry permafrost carbon dioxide is released.
In the United States, within two months, Americans will again have another opportunity to break out of their own carefully constructed insane asylum. We will have a chance to change the makeup of the U.S. Congress. Global warming is happening now, and we Americans have another possibility of demonstrating we're not a country of total ignoramuses.
In the course of coming up with some ideas for a piece I have to submit in a couple of weeks to the Kansas City Star, I read a couple of articles regarding a study published in the journal Nature, and a European-sponsored project regarding Antarctic "ice coring."
It seems that scientists have been able to get sample ice cores that go back some 800,000 years. Air bubbles trapped within these "cores" can tell scientists the amount of greenhouse gas concentrations over nearly a million-year period. The long and short of it is that carbon dioxide levels are a good deal higher than at any time in 800,000 years.
Possibly even more worrisome is that the increasing melting of the permafrost, especially in Siberia, an area covering some 10 million square kilometers, is not only releasing more CO2 but also Methane. Methane is an especially nasty "greenhouse gas." While methane disperses faster than carbon dioxide, some 10 years versus 100 years for CO2, it is about 23 times more powerful in trapping heat than CO2.
Methane is being released from the permafrost much, much faster than expected. Greenhouse gases and rising temperatures are connected and self-perpetuating: more greenhouse gases mean more melting, leading to increasing amounts of green house gases, and so forth.
Yedoma is a type of permafrost located primarily in parts of Siberia, and mostly lies under lakes. What is of interest here is that the melting permafrost releases methane, whereas under dry permafrost carbon dioxide is released.
In the United States, within two months, Americans will again have another opportunity to break out of their own carefully constructed insane asylum. We will have a chance to change the makeup of the U.S. Congress. Global warming is happening now, and we Americans have another possibility of demonstrating we're not a country of total ignoramuses.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Cows, Corn, and Melting Ice
The U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture claim that the world's grain harvest, for a second year in a row, will not be able to meet worldwide consumption needs.
Professor John Holden, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said recently that climate change is happening a lot faster than predicted. So what, if anything, might this all mean?
The short answer is we don't know for certain. The longer-term answer is we don't know ... for certain. But only fools would act as though nothing has changed or that some very bad things are unlikely to occur. In conclusion, a great many fools inhabit the planet and a great many governments are run by fools.
The remarkable increase in world grain and food production that has occurred over the past 40 or 50 years has begun to slow down. For one, there are more mouths to feed. In 1950 the world's population was less than 3 billion people. Today we have more than twice that number. More people have meant less farmland under cultivation because the land is being used for human habitation.
Perhaps the vegetarians have had it right all along. It seems that as the standard-of-living has risen in many countries, meat consumption has increased. A lot of those slaughtered animals are fed grain. Perhaps a third of the world's grain harvest goes directly to feeding the animals we eat.
A relatively new problem has arisen in our attempt to find alternatives to fossil fuels. The primary reason for the interest in the need to reduce global warming gases as well as the distinct possibility that "black gold" could be a lot less plentiful and cheap. Biofuels is one of the many alternatives.
The potential problem, however, is that a biofuel, like ethanol--sometimes made from corn--and plentiful in the United States, will not be exported to feed primarily poor people overseas, but will be used instead to fuel our vehicles. In a country like the U.S. where there is no genuine energy-conservation-environmental policy, the consequences could be disastrous for grain supplies worldwide.
The potential monster in the room is of course climate change. Melting ice caps, rising sea levels, heatwaves, floods, and desertification could cause global disruptions on a scale we humans can barely envision.
Increasing fuel efficiency standard and establishing authentic conservation policies in the developed world are important. Spending time and money to help people in the developing world grow food in ways that do not harm the environment are worth the effort. But until we believe collectively that a disaster may be inching toward us, and the developed countries find leaders that can both think and imagine, our choices will "drip" away every day.
Professor John Holden, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said recently that climate change is happening a lot faster than predicted. So what, if anything, might this all mean?
The short answer is we don't know for certain. The longer-term answer is we don't know ... for certain. But only fools would act as though nothing has changed or that some very bad things are unlikely to occur. In conclusion, a great many fools inhabit the planet and a great many governments are run by fools.
The remarkable increase in world grain and food production that has occurred over the past 40 or 50 years has begun to slow down. For one, there are more mouths to feed. In 1950 the world's population was less than 3 billion people. Today we have more than twice that number. More people have meant less farmland under cultivation because the land is being used for human habitation.
Perhaps the vegetarians have had it right all along. It seems that as the standard-of-living has risen in many countries, meat consumption has increased. A lot of those slaughtered animals are fed grain. Perhaps a third of the world's grain harvest goes directly to feeding the animals we eat.
A relatively new problem has arisen in our attempt to find alternatives to fossil fuels. The primary reason for the interest in the need to reduce global warming gases as well as the distinct possibility that "black gold" could be a lot less plentiful and cheap. Biofuels is one of the many alternatives.
The potential problem, however, is that a biofuel, like ethanol--sometimes made from corn--and plentiful in the United States, will not be exported to feed primarily poor people overseas, but will be used instead to fuel our vehicles. In a country like the U.S. where there is no genuine energy-conservation-environmental policy, the consequences could be disastrous for grain supplies worldwide.
The potential monster in the room is of course climate change. Melting ice caps, rising sea levels, heatwaves, floods, and desertification could cause global disruptions on a scale we humans can barely envision.
Increasing fuel efficiency standard and establishing authentic conservation policies in the developed world are important. Spending time and money to help people in the developing world grow food in ways that do not harm the environment are worth the effort. But until we believe collectively that a disaster may be inching toward us, and the developed countries find leaders that can both think and imagine, our choices will "drip" away every day.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Tell Me Why
Have you heard of the branch of pure mathematics called topology? Up until a couple of days ago I had not. Topology is a branch of mathematics that deals with shapes. Different shapes can be deformed or reworked into one another. The topologists are interested in so called "closed" forms that have a fixed extent or limit.
After reading a general description, I'm still reasonably certain I have only the slightest grasp of what it means--certainly in a mathematical sense. But its relevance just might extend well beyond the abstruse world of higher math.
Topology is in the news because Grigory Perelman, a Russian mathematician, some three years ago, informed the world he'd solved this mathematical problem known among mathematicians as the Poincare conjecture. Then the Russian disappeared. The world's foremost mathematicians continued the Russian's work and now, three years later, have reached a "cautious optimism" regarding Perelman's conclusions. Many are now suggesting that not only is it a remarkable achievement in mathematics--but of human thought itself.
Dr. William Thurston of Cornell has said, "You don't see what you're seeing until you see it, but when you do see it, it lets you see many things." Thurston goes on to say that, "curiosity is tied in some way with intuition." For most of us non-mathematicians this easily sounds like obscure gobblygook, but just possibly there may be something else to consider....
That something else is the two words curiosity and intuition. Where do they come from? Why do some people appear to have more of it than others? Does one need curiosity before intuition takes place or might it be the other way around? Why or how did Albert Einstein for example, sitting in a trolley car in Vienna, come up with the idea that time itself depends on where the observer is? Was he merely bored as he traveled back and forth from his dull job at the patent office? And will the latest mathematical discoveries get us any closer to an understanding? Are you curious?
Will the rising cost of a barrel of oil--and the difficulty of having easy alternatives--stimulate new energy sources? Is it scarcity that will push and develop our curiosity and intuition? History is full of examples where shortages led to new inventions as well as new energy sources.
The writer Deborah Blum, in an article in The New York Times, remarked that President Bush's veto of the embryonic stem cell legislation follows a fairly consistent pattern of those that have opposed medical and scientific "progress" on religious and moral grounds.
In the 11th and 12th century the Christian church warned individuals that using medicine to treat illness indicated a "lack of faith." As recently as the 19th century cries of "Satanism" were shouted when doctors began using chloroform to reduce the pain of childbirth.
Religious benightedness and incurious rulers have always been with us. But dogged persistence followed by evidence and success more often than not triumphed over ignorance.
To what degree does a vibrant, creative society encourage curiosity and respect intuition? To what degree does it ultimately demand evidence? What will we learn next about the Poincare conjecture?
After reading a general description, I'm still reasonably certain I have only the slightest grasp of what it means--certainly in a mathematical sense. But its relevance just might extend well beyond the abstruse world of higher math.
Topology is in the news because Grigory Perelman, a Russian mathematician, some three years ago, informed the world he'd solved this mathematical problem known among mathematicians as the Poincare conjecture. Then the Russian disappeared. The world's foremost mathematicians continued the Russian's work and now, three years later, have reached a "cautious optimism" regarding Perelman's conclusions. Many are now suggesting that not only is it a remarkable achievement in mathematics--but of human thought itself.
Dr. William Thurston of Cornell has said, "You don't see what you're seeing until you see it, but when you do see it, it lets you see many things." Thurston goes on to say that, "curiosity is tied in some way with intuition." For most of us non-mathematicians this easily sounds like obscure gobblygook, but just possibly there may be something else to consider....
That something else is the two words curiosity and intuition. Where do they come from? Why do some people appear to have more of it than others? Does one need curiosity before intuition takes place or might it be the other way around? Why or how did Albert Einstein for example, sitting in a trolley car in Vienna, come up with the idea that time itself depends on where the observer is? Was he merely bored as he traveled back and forth from his dull job at the patent office? And will the latest mathematical discoveries get us any closer to an understanding? Are you curious?
Will the rising cost of a barrel of oil--and the difficulty of having easy alternatives--stimulate new energy sources? Is it scarcity that will push and develop our curiosity and intuition? History is full of examples where shortages led to new inventions as well as new energy sources.
The writer Deborah Blum, in an article in The New York Times, remarked that President Bush's veto of the embryonic stem cell legislation follows a fairly consistent pattern of those that have opposed medical and scientific "progress" on religious and moral grounds.
In the 11th and 12th century the Christian church warned individuals that using medicine to treat illness indicated a "lack of faith." As recently as the 19th century cries of "Satanism" were shouted when doctors began using chloroform to reduce the pain of childbirth.
Religious benightedness and incurious rulers have always been with us. But dogged persistence followed by evidence and success more often than not triumphed over ignorance.
To what degree does a vibrant, creative society encourage curiosity and respect intuition? To what degree does it ultimately demand evidence? What will we learn next about the Poincare conjecture?
Monday, August 07, 2006
Iron Age Fantasies
The most recent human obscenity, this time in Lebanon, again demonstrates that national borders have become almost irrelevant--certainly when it comes to global degradation.
The Israeli bombing of oil storage facilities and power plants has turned the Lebanon coastline into a black oil slick, which is apparently spreading to Syria, Turkey, Cyprus, and who knows where else. We know it will likely have disastrous consequences for marine life, but it will also impact areas within Lebanon and Israel, due to deforestation, habitat destruction, and air and water pollution. It may turn out to be a major environmental catastrophe in the eastern Mediterranean.
Some scientists now believe that China, in the not to distant future, may account for "a third" of California's air pollution. While China itself is well on its way to becoming an environmental disaster, it could, as well, drag the rest of the world with it. An atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington, after analyzing particulate matter (from Asia) at monitoring sites in Oregon said, "There is no place where you can put away your pollution anymore."
In the simplest of terms, even if the United States suddenly became the most environmentally enlightened nation on the planet, unrestrained growth in countries like China and India, with more than two billion inhabitants, could turn our planet into a nightmarish hell at the very least.
The option, however, is not to throw up our hands in despair or cling to some Iron Age fairy tales. There are no beautiful virgins waiting in the ether, nor did some Old Testament sociopath give some sand dunes to a particular group of people. The only "miracle" is this extraordinary planet we live on. We push even harder for global change. Earth is worth it.
The Israeli bombing of oil storage facilities and power plants has turned the Lebanon coastline into a black oil slick, which is apparently spreading to Syria, Turkey, Cyprus, and who knows where else. We know it will likely have disastrous consequences for marine life, but it will also impact areas within Lebanon and Israel, due to deforestation, habitat destruction, and air and water pollution. It may turn out to be a major environmental catastrophe in the eastern Mediterranean.
Some scientists now believe that China, in the not to distant future, may account for "a third" of California's air pollution. While China itself is well on its way to becoming an environmental disaster, it could, as well, drag the rest of the world with it. An atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington, after analyzing particulate matter (from Asia) at monitoring sites in Oregon said, "There is no place where you can put away your pollution anymore."
In the simplest of terms, even if the United States suddenly became the most environmentally enlightened nation on the planet, unrestrained growth in countries like China and India, with more than two billion inhabitants, could turn our planet into a nightmarish hell at the very least.
The option, however, is not to throw up our hands in despair or cling to some Iron Age fairy tales. There are no beautiful virgins waiting in the ether, nor did some Old Testament sociopath give some sand dunes to a particular group of people. The only "miracle" is this extraordinary planet we live on. We push even harder for global change. Earth is worth it.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
The Magic Bullet
Adapted from article first printed in Kansas City Star, 7/22/06, entitled "Corn No 'Magic Bullet' For Our Energy Crisis."
Henry Ford in 1925 said, "The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumac out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust--almost anything."
The father of the mass-produced automobile was 81 years too early in his prediction, but it's now likely that "weeds" will play some part in fueling our vehicles.
But we should be extremely skeptical of the assorted snake-oil salesmen with their cure-all patent medicine. In the Midwest, the syrupy elixir is ethanol made from corn.
Biofuels, of which ethanol is the best known, are byproducts of once-living organisms, which could include such things as wood, elephant dung or grass. Today biofuels are essentially alcohols that come from crops like sugar cane, soybeans and corn.
Biofuels are "carbon-neutral," in theory. They don't supply significant amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the main greenhouse gas contributing to global warming.
Corn as fuel is now being touted in the United States. From Wall Street investment firms to bloated agribusinesses, corn has become the latest energy traveling circus.
But like the wizard behind the curtain, much of the ethanol ballyhoo is smoke and mirrors. Some people, however, may become rich because of the public's gullibility and its apparent unwillingness to even consider a national energy and environmental policy.
We've got a lot of corn in America. In fact, corn-based fast foods and the numerous products that contain high fructose corn syrup have helped make America possibly the most obese nation in history. The problem is that corn may be one of the worst plants we could consider as a biofuel.
Although corn is heavily subsidized, courtesy of the American taxpayer, it also uses more synthetic fertilizer than any other crop. The fertilizer comes primarily from natural gas, and nitrogen runoffs cause immense damage to water supplies and aquatic life. Corn also uses a lot of pesticides, which are made from petroleum.
Atrazine, a highly poisonous herbicide--banned by the European Union--is applied in large amounts on American cornfields. The Environmental Protection Agency states it is the second-most-common pesticide in drinking wells.
And even before the corn gets near a distillation plant, it has already used one-third to one-half gallon of gasoline for every bushel of corn grown. More fossil fuel is used when the corn is actually distilled. Cheap, readily available fossil fuel is a rapidly vanishing delusion.
Of course, global corporations like Archer Daniels Midland are salivating at the prospect of turning all that corn into gold. ADM is the largest producer of ethanol (from corn) in the United States. Over the years this particular company has been found guilty of price fixing, charged with numerous violations of the Clean Air Act, and has had to pay out millions of dollars in fines and settlements. Perhaps most ironic of all is that ADM proposes to produce much of the ethanol in its coal-fired plants, one of the dirtiest forms of energy around.
Reducing our fossil fuel consumption is urgent and long overdue. The obvious first step is an authentic national conservation plan.
Biofuels will become just one of many possible energy alternatives. In the not-too-distant future we may be making ethanol from vegetable cellulose such as switchgrass, which would be far more efficient, less costly and less harmful to the environment than any corn ethanol.
A country with no conservation policy, anxious to find a quick fix for rural America, and guided by some obsolete cartoon capitalism will believe almost anything, even some fairy tale about a new "energy bullet."
Henry Ford in 1925 said, "The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumac out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust--almost anything."
The father of the mass-produced automobile was 81 years too early in his prediction, but it's now likely that "weeds" will play some part in fueling our vehicles.
But we should be extremely skeptical of the assorted snake-oil salesmen with their cure-all patent medicine. In the Midwest, the syrupy elixir is ethanol made from corn.
Biofuels, of which ethanol is the best known, are byproducts of once-living organisms, which could include such things as wood, elephant dung or grass. Today biofuels are essentially alcohols that come from crops like sugar cane, soybeans and corn.
Biofuels are "carbon-neutral," in theory. They don't supply significant amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the main greenhouse gas contributing to global warming.
Corn as fuel is now being touted in the United States. From Wall Street investment firms to bloated agribusinesses, corn has become the latest energy traveling circus.
But like the wizard behind the curtain, much of the ethanol ballyhoo is smoke and mirrors. Some people, however, may become rich because of the public's gullibility and its apparent unwillingness to even consider a national energy and environmental policy.
We've got a lot of corn in America. In fact, corn-based fast foods and the numerous products that contain high fructose corn syrup have helped make America possibly the most obese nation in history. The problem is that corn may be one of the worst plants we could consider as a biofuel.
Although corn is heavily subsidized, courtesy of the American taxpayer, it also uses more synthetic fertilizer than any other crop. The fertilizer comes primarily from natural gas, and nitrogen runoffs cause immense damage to water supplies and aquatic life. Corn also uses a lot of pesticides, which are made from petroleum.
Atrazine, a highly poisonous herbicide--banned by the European Union--is applied in large amounts on American cornfields. The Environmental Protection Agency states it is the second-most-common pesticide in drinking wells.
And even before the corn gets near a distillation plant, it has already used one-third to one-half gallon of gasoline for every bushel of corn grown. More fossil fuel is used when the corn is actually distilled. Cheap, readily available fossil fuel is a rapidly vanishing delusion.
Of course, global corporations like Archer Daniels Midland are salivating at the prospect of turning all that corn into gold. ADM is the largest producer of ethanol (from corn) in the United States. Over the years this particular company has been found guilty of price fixing, charged with numerous violations of the Clean Air Act, and has had to pay out millions of dollars in fines and settlements. Perhaps most ironic of all is that ADM proposes to produce much of the ethanol in its coal-fired plants, one of the dirtiest forms of energy around.
Reducing our fossil fuel consumption is urgent and long overdue. The obvious first step is an authentic national conservation plan.
Biofuels will become just one of many possible energy alternatives. In the not-too-distant future we may be making ethanol from vegetable cellulose such as switchgrass, which would be far more efficient, less costly and less harmful to the environment than any corn ethanol.
A country with no conservation policy, anxious to find a quick fix for rural America, and guided by some obsolete cartoon capitalism will believe almost anything, even some fairy tale about a new "energy bullet."
Friday, July 14, 2006
Bigger Body Count
This year the United States will have a population of 300,000,000. We have a net gain of 1 person every 11 seconds. The U.S. is now the fastest growing "developed" country in the world.
James Howard Kunstler's book The Long Emergency is worth reading. Kunstler's thesis is that cheap fossil fuel has made the modern world possible; it is the "platform" from which our rapid technological advances have occurred, including everything from democratic institutions to improved health care to discussions about what our existence means. And it all may be coming to an end. Cheap, readily available fossil fuel is an anomaly in human history.
In the end, according to Kunstler, we may get optimistically 200 years or so out of cheap fuel--and we've already used up about 150 years. We're running out of it because it's a finite resource, although we sometimes act as though it's not. Most important, there is nothing we know of today that's going to remotely replace it or make it possible to enjoy continued growth or increasing levels of prosperity. It's going to get pretty bleak, what Kunstler calls the "long emergency." Some will find Kunstler's thesis implausible and others on target. But most people will nevertheless find it disturbing....
We have more than 6 billion humans living on the planet right now, and our rapid population increase began at the start of the industrial revolution around 1800 and really took off in the early twentieth century. In the late eighteenth century we had approximately one billion inhabitants on Earth. This could once again become the upper limit of our sustainable population.
America is now the third most populous country in the world. We are by far the worst polluter on the planet, emitting nearly twice the carbon dioxide emissions as our closest competitor, China. We average some 1,300 gallons of water per day, per citizen, the highest rate in the world. We Americans individually generate hundreds of pounds of trash each year, with paper, plastics, and metals leading the way.
One in three teenage girls in the U.S. become pregnant, and more than 50% of Americans now live within 10 miles of polluted water. The current American government has essentially restricted international family planning funds to sexual abstinence policies because of the dysfunctional influence of Christian fundamentalism. And we haven't even talked about the growing environmental disaster that's occurring in China and to a lesser degree in India. These two countries have a combined population of more than two billion inhabitants.
Even with cheap, readily available fossil fuels, we've got a planet in acute trouble. What are we willing and able to do? What are we willing to give up--because those of us in the developed world will have to part with a great deal? How fast are we willing to do it? The options are vanishing fast.
James Howard Kunstler's book The Long Emergency is worth reading. Kunstler's thesis is that cheap fossil fuel has made the modern world possible; it is the "platform" from which our rapid technological advances have occurred, including everything from democratic institutions to improved health care to discussions about what our existence means. And it all may be coming to an end. Cheap, readily available fossil fuel is an anomaly in human history.
In the end, according to Kunstler, we may get optimistically 200 years or so out of cheap fuel--and we've already used up about 150 years. We're running out of it because it's a finite resource, although we sometimes act as though it's not. Most important, there is nothing we know of today that's going to remotely replace it or make it possible to enjoy continued growth or increasing levels of prosperity. It's going to get pretty bleak, what Kunstler calls the "long emergency." Some will find Kunstler's thesis implausible and others on target. But most people will nevertheless find it disturbing....
We have more than 6 billion humans living on the planet right now, and our rapid population increase began at the start of the industrial revolution around 1800 and really took off in the early twentieth century. In the late eighteenth century we had approximately one billion inhabitants on Earth. This could once again become the upper limit of our sustainable population.
America is now the third most populous country in the world. We are by far the worst polluter on the planet, emitting nearly twice the carbon dioxide emissions as our closest competitor, China. We average some 1,300 gallons of water per day, per citizen, the highest rate in the world. We Americans individually generate hundreds of pounds of trash each year, with paper, plastics, and metals leading the way.
One in three teenage girls in the U.S. become pregnant, and more than 50% of Americans now live within 10 miles of polluted water. The current American government has essentially restricted international family planning funds to sexual abstinence policies because of the dysfunctional influence of Christian fundamentalism. And we haven't even talked about the growing environmental disaster that's occurring in China and to a lesser degree in India. These two countries have a combined population of more than two billion inhabitants.
Even with cheap, readily available fossil fuels, we've got a planet in acute trouble. What are we willing and able to do? What are we willing to give up--because those of us in the developed world will have to part with a great deal? How fast are we willing to do it? The options are vanishing fast.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Changing the Footprint
Have you heard the name Wangari Maathai? That was the question Bob Ferguson put to me. I'd met Bob for the first time that morning on the tennis court, after which we got some coffee. Bob was a distributor with Shaklee (www.shaklee.net/ferguson), a health and wellness firm.
Dr. Wangari Maathai, the founder of the Greenbelt Movement in Kenya, became a Nobel Peace Laureate in 2004. The Shaklee Corporation donated $100,000 in order to help Maathai plant some one million trees in Kenya. In 2000 Shaklee had become the first organization to be certified "climate neutral" by the Climate Neutral Network (www.climateneutral.com)
More and more today we're hearing the term climate neutral, as well as calls for both individuals and organizations to reduce their environmental "footprint."
The phrase climate neutral refers to a company's product or service that has little or no effect on the earth's climate. In other words, emitting little or no greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chloroflurocarbons, carbon monoxide and small amounts of other gases).
In order to get certified a company must first make "internal reductions" within its own organization and then invest in offsets to reduce the remaining greenhouse gas emissions. Tree planting would be considered one of many types of possible offsets because trees take in carbon dioxide.
Regardless of the reasons why a company might embark on climate neutral strategies, it is in fact occurring throughout the world, from carpet companies and hotel chains to aircraft engine manufacturers like Boeing and financial service organizations such as JPMorganChase.
But as many organizations are finding out, it is often easier to declare climate neutral strategies than it is to clearly quantify and measure results. For example, when a particular company interacts with a diverse group of firms or suppliers in order to create and produce a specific product or service, how is credit divided up?
Joel Makower and GreenBiz.com (www.greenbiz.com) have spent a good deal of time thinking and writing about climate neutral policies. Makower has pointed out that a world commodity market now exists for greenhouse gas emissions reduction. There's money in it--and the incentive for many an organization or investor to declare its climate neutral "worthiness."
In building an automobile, for example, how much credit does the aluminum industry receive when it improves existing technology or for that matter spends millions developing new technology, which ultimately ends up in new cars, making them lighter, thus causing carbon reductions? What about the automotive manufacturer? How do you quantify his credit for redesigning new cars, possibly making them less wind resistant and more fuel-efficient? What about government itself? To what degree do tougher regulatory standard drive the changes? Last but not least is the actual consumer. Does that person receive any credit for purchasing the particular car?
But if climate mitigation for the entire planet is a valued--and critical--objective, who should ultimately establish the overarching criteria and goal? Clearly a lot of bright individuals and farsighted organizations are now thinking about climate neutral ideas as well as implementing policies; but much is still missing, perhaps the most important component. The fact that there might be an enlightened company somewhere outside of Paris tells you one thing: One company outside of Paris has implemented some climate neutral policies.
According to the U.N. Climate Secretariat, carbon dioxide emissions went up to 15.1 billion tons in 2004 from 14.5 billion in 1990. The Greenland ice sheet, broad enough to cover an area the size of Mexico, is deteriorating faster than it was only a few years ago. How do we want to proceed? It strikes me as being somewhat more than a mere business school exercise.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I've ended up trying a few of Shaklee's products.
Dr. Wangari Maathai, the founder of the Greenbelt Movement in Kenya, became a Nobel Peace Laureate in 2004. The Shaklee Corporation donated $100,000 in order to help Maathai plant some one million trees in Kenya. In 2000 Shaklee had become the first organization to be certified "climate neutral" by the Climate Neutral Network (www.climateneutral.com)
More and more today we're hearing the term climate neutral, as well as calls for both individuals and organizations to reduce their environmental "footprint."
The phrase climate neutral refers to a company's product or service that has little or no effect on the earth's climate. In other words, emitting little or no greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chloroflurocarbons, carbon monoxide and small amounts of other gases).
In order to get certified a company must first make "internal reductions" within its own organization and then invest in offsets to reduce the remaining greenhouse gas emissions. Tree planting would be considered one of many types of possible offsets because trees take in carbon dioxide.
Regardless of the reasons why a company might embark on climate neutral strategies, it is in fact occurring throughout the world, from carpet companies and hotel chains to aircraft engine manufacturers like Boeing and financial service organizations such as JPMorganChase.
But as many organizations are finding out, it is often easier to declare climate neutral strategies than it is to clearly quantify and measure results. For example, when a particular company interacts with a diverse group of firms or suppliers in order to create and produce a specific product or service, how is credit divided up?
Joel Makower and GreenBiz.com (www.greenbiz.com) have spent a good deal of time thinking and writing about climate neutral policies. Makower has pointed out that a world commodity market now exists for greenhouse gas emissions reduction. There's money in it--and the incentive for many an organization or investor to declare its climate neutral "worthiness."
In building an automobile, for example, how much credit does the aluminum industry receive when it improves existing technology or for that matter spends millions developing new technology, which ultimately ends up in new cars, making them lighter, thus causing carbon reductions? What about the automotive manufacturer? How do you quantify his credit for redesigning new cars, possibly making them less wind resistant and more fuel-efficient? What about government itself? To what degree do tougher regulatory standard drive the changes? Last but not least is the actual consumer. Does that person receive any credit for purchasing the particular car?
But if climate mitigation for the entire planet is a valued--and critical--objective, who should ultimately establish the overarching criteria and goal? Clearly a lot of bright individuals and farsighted organizations are now thinking about climate neutral ideas as well as implementing policies; but much is still missing, perhaps the most important component. The fact that there might be an enlightened company somewhere outside of Paris tells you one thing: One company outside of Paris has implemented some climate neutral policies.
According to the U.N. Climate Secretariat, carbon dioxide emissions went up to 15.1 billion tons in 2004 from 14.5 billion in 1990. The Greenland ice sheet, broad enough to cover an area the size of Mexico, is deteriorating faster than it was only a few years ago. How do we want to proceed? It strikes me as being somewhat more than a mere business school exercise.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I've ended up trying a few of Shaklee's products.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Gone Hiking
Heading off to the Pacific Northwest to do some hiking, gaze at some beautiful scenery, and perhaps visit a couple of national parks to see if there is any noticeable deterioration. Under this current American government budgets have been slashed and staff cuts have been made throughout our national parks system. Some national park bookstores are supposedly carrying biblical fairytales stating that the Earth is only six or seven thousand years old.
On June 8, 1906 President Theodore Roosevelt signed a law protecting the natural and cultural resources of the United States. The Antiquities Act, as it's known today, gives the President the authority to protect national landmarks. I suppose under this current American president we should be grateful we even have something like the Antiquities Act, to at least slow down human depredation. Developers and the fossil fuel industry are now eying these heretofore-protected areas.
Speaking of landmarks, pressure has been mounting from scientists to get the UN World Heritage Sites Committee to acknowledge that some of the world's most important sites have been damaged by climate change brought on by greenhouse gas emissions. Some of these sites include the great Barrier Reef in Australia, the Belize Barrier Reef, the Waterton-Glacier Park along the US and Canadian border, and the Husascaran National Park in Peru.
The signatories to the Heritage Sites agreement (including the U.S.) state that they will not damage listed sites. The petition brought by scientists to the UN, if successful, could have poor countries being able to sue richer countries for not doing more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's expected that the United States government will oppose this petition.
No one said it would be easy!
On June 8, 1906 President Theodore Roosevelt signed a law protecting the natural and cultural resources of the United States. The Antiquities Act, as it's known today, gives the President the authority to protect national landmarks. I suppose under this current American president we should be grateful we even have something like the Antiquities Act, to at least slow down human depredation. Developers and the fossil fuel industry are now eying these heretofore-protected areas.
Speaking of landmarks, pressure has been mounting from scientists to get the UN World Heritage Sites Committee to acknowledge that some of the world's most important sites have been damaged by climate change brought on by greenhouse gas emissions. Some of these sites include the great Barrier Reef in Australia, the Belize Barrier Reef, the Waterton-Glacier Park along the US and Canadian border, and the Husascaran National Park in Peru.
The signatories to the Heritage Sites agreement (including the U.S.) state that they will not damage listed sites. The petition brought by scientists to the UN, if successful, could have poor countries being able to sue richer countries for not doing more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's expected that the United States government will oppose this petition.
No one said it would be easy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)