Tagged: Responsibility

Startling Environmental Facts – Take Action Now

Below are 10 startling facts we learned in 2009 that underscore the climate threat. I am republishing them from an email I received from the Environmental Defense Fund. 

  • A study published in the journal Science reports that the current level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere – about 390 parts per million – is higher today than at any time in measurable history — at least the last 2.1 million years. Previous peaks of CO2 were never more than 300 ppm over the past 800,000 years, and the concentration is rising by around 2 ppm each year.
  • The World Meterological Organization reported that 2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record with 8 of the hottest 10 years having occurred since 2000.
  • 2009 will end up as one of the 5 hottest years since 1850 and the U.K.’s Met Office predicts that, with a moderate El Nino, 2010 will likely break the record.
  • The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that while a bit more summer Arctic sea ice appeared in 2009 than the record breaking lows of the last two years, it was still well below normal levels. Given that the Arctic ice cover remains perilously thin, it is vulnerable to further melting, posing an ever increasing threat to Arctic wildlife including polar bears.
  • The Arctic summer could be ice-free by mid-century, not at the end of the century as previously expected, according to a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
  • Recent observations published in the highly respected Nature Geosciences indicate that the East Antarctica ice sheet has been shrinking. This surprised researchers, who expected that only the West Antarctic ice sheet would shrink in the near future because the East Antarctic ice sheet is colder and more stable.
  • The U.S. Global Change Research Program completed an assessment of what is known about climate change impacts in the US and reported that, “Climate changes are already observed in the United States and… are projected to grow.” These changes include “increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.”
  • According to a report by the US Geological Survey, slight changes in the climate may trigger abrupt threats to ecosystems that are not easily reversible or adaptable, such as insect outbreaks, wildfire, and forest dieback. “More vulnerable ecosystems, such as those that already face stressors other than climate change, will almost certainly reach their threshold for abrupt change sooner.” An example of such an abrupt threat is the outbreak of spruce bark beetles throughout the western U.S. caused by increased winter temperatures that allow more beetles to survive.
  • The EPA, USGS and NOAA issued a joint report warning that most mid-Atlantic coastal wetlands from New York to North Carolina will be lost with a sea level rise of 1 meter or more.
  • If we do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century, some of the main fruit and nut tree crops currently grown in California may no longer be economically viable, as there will be a lack of the winter chilling they require. And, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. production of corn, soybeans and cotton could decrease as much as 82%.

If these facts actually did startle you, then please Take Action to Unleash Our Clean Energy Future. If they didn’t then please check your pulse, or do us a favor and step into traffic. Happy Tuesday!

Building Offshore Platforms, But Not For Drilling

I have a dream that one day a politician will get on TV and tell people gas prices are supposed to be high, and that there’s a cost to living 50 miles from an urban center. She’ll say that cost is $4 a gallon, and it should be higher. Suck it up she’ll demand.

But, in my dream she also includes an equally sized reduction in health care costs, saying Americans should be able to get preventive care on the cheap so that future health care expenditures are greatly reduced. The dream includes other points as well, but I’d like to focus on the above: $2 antibiotics, $20 gas.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in another flash of brilliantly bright  (I’m blind!) idiocy, said she is open to offshore drilling. The NY Times piece to which I linked includes includes classic posturing from both sides of the aisle, and demonstrates again that Republicans plain just don’t care about other people, and that Democrats plain just can’t help but bend over in times of conflict.

Perhaps my frustration is born from the fact that the answer to our energy problems is so simple in design that it’s hard to see. I’ve written beforethat the America needs not more locally sourced oil, but less oil in general. This isn’t a new concept, but one that’s not easily grasped by people, especially that smart-decision-challenged group of individuals we call our elected officials. I feel a terribly tangential rant coming on about term limits so I must take a deep breath and focus.

Announcements like this one, for the construction of the nation’s largest solar plant, keep me from stroking out, but they are few and far between. Conservation, and the development of new renewable energy technologies (that don’t use food as fuel), are the only right strategies to a better tomorrow. Plain and simple. What happened to the days of reaching for the stars and actually touching them?

That being said, I have mixed feelings about what the next decade will bring. If we put our minds to it, we could develop good enough solar, wind, biomass and efficiency technologies to replace fossil fuels entirely. If we roll over, new platforms will be built because that’s what government of late does – suck pipeline. Most likely both will happen, but if we’re lucky, the last boat of supplies to the shiny, new platforms won’t be carrying drills. It’ll be filled with some rope, our worthless leaders, and a nice, sturdy plank.

1Sky, Or Too Many?

A friend from Show My Progress sent me a link today to 1Sky, a group that “was created in 2007 to focus the power of millions of concerned Americans on a single goal: bold federal action by 2010 that can reverse global warming.”  Join the movement here.

Currently, the group is recruiting citizens to visit their members of Congress during each House’s respective recess: 4 to September 7 for the House, August 9 to September 7 for the Senate. To register for this I believe you can go here.

Good luck to these folks. I signed up and will do what I can. But, this warrants important questions. How many groups are there like this? And, does the creation of each new one dilute the efforts of the rest? My answers are “too many” and “yes”.

Long-standing groups like the Sierra Club have been fighting the fight for some time. High profile people like Al Gore are making waves internationally. I’m not saying their ideas are better or worse, just that throw in the Apollo Alliance and 1Sky and Green Global and green | rising (no?) and what does the message sound like? A symphony of reason or a bunch of well-meaning people banging pots?

Because I actually give a crap about global warming I try my best to pay attention to the latest efforts. The people who intentionally hate on mother earth are a lost cause, as are the people who don’t have the time to care ’cause America is doing so well right now. Please, take a moment to laugh at the erosion of America’s middle class. My concern is with the people who can’t act because they are overwhelmed by too much data from too many places. These people want to help but where should they start? Who should they listen to? You tell me.

Life At 100 Miles Per Gallon

Balancing convenience with conscience is a tall order. In this regard, some of people are luckier than others. One extreme instinctually favors conscience over convenience; the people is this extreme represent a social zenith and consistently make decisions based on the greater good. The people in the other extreme have no conscience; these people represent a social nadir and consistently make decisions based on benefit to oneself regardless of the decision’s impact on society. I like to call these people Republicans.

That leaves the rest of us, myself included. My wife and I live a greener life than most Americans. I’m sure our lifestyle compared to that of hypothetical doppelgangers living in a more “efficient” country would pale in comparison, but as Americans raised to consume, we do alright. We’re both vegetarian, live in an urban area and own only one car (I walk to work). Owning only one car is the catalyst for my thoughts today.

The life we live now and intend to live for the short-term requires us to own only one automobile. Admittedly, it’s not a hybrid, but a relatively fuel efficient sedan. It’s big enough to meet all of our needs but not so big as to make us feel that it’s underused or a total and complete plague on society (read: SUV). That being said, we’re both social beings, and often times our interests and commitments conflict with each other’s. Public transit in our fair city is good but not great, and only occasionally is it convenient practical to use for not commuting transportation. So what’s the solution? We’re buying a scooter!!!

A handful of people I know have one, and their identities vary from coworker to friend to neighbor to blogger I read. Point is, people are starting to use them more and more. This is where someone from Europe or Asian reading this says under his breath, “No shit, moron”.

“Apologies for our ignorance my friends.” Sorry, I was momentarily channeling George W. Bush III’s John McCain’s future I-got-my-ass-kicked-in-the-presidential-election speech. And we’re back. At roughly one-tenth the cost and four times the fuel efficiency of the average car, scooters make sense. Is it perfect? No, but it’s better than the status quo. Buying one instead of a car balances my convenience with my conscience, and that’s what I ask of you.

Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler

Mark Bittman does a yeoman’s job of summarizing the meat industry’s impact on the globe in this article. The facts are astonishing, mind-blowing, and will create real shock and awe in your mind if you synthesize them. And in light of the current global food crisis, the idea of reducing our collective meat intake makes even more sense. Please read the article in its entirety – I promiseyou won’t regret it, unless you like to be ignorant that is. Further, Bittman is not a vegetarian, so don’t think he’s predisposed to one side of the argument. His point is that those who choose to eat meat should eat much less to help both the environment and their health. Here are a few teasers from the piece:

  • . . . an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.
  • . . . a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
  • Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.
  • We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice the federal government’s recommended allowance; of that, about 75 grams come from animal protein. (The recommended level is itself considered by many dietary experts to be higher than it needs to be.) It’s likely that most of us would do just fine on around 30 grams of protein a day, virtually all of it from plant sources.

I don’t want to repeat the entire article so that’s all I’ll give you. Seriously, go read it. It takes only a few minutes. I’m not telling you to become a vegetarian, though the change would be good for both you and your neighbors. I’m telling you to audit your meat intake and reduce the amount you eat while increasing the quality of it. That change alone, among all of us, will help redirect food sources to the people who need it most while significantly reducing pollution caused by the meat industry. You have to be a real jerk to order a double cheeseburger meal while people all around the globe struggle to find food daily. Throwing money at the problem is a bandage, not a long-term solution.