Kit Stolz

Extreme Enviro Bathrooms

A wonderfully warm, funny piece from Orion and Nicole McLelland. The can’t miss quote:

"So where do you pee?" I asked Brian.

"It’s especially good for the trees, if you’d like to do them the service, Dan," he said, turning his gray-bearded grin toward my companion. I waited, but he didn’t address me. I appealed to Sally.

"Where do you pee?" I asked her.

Oh, we have a special toilet just for women, I hoped Sally would say, then direct me to an immaculate bidet down the hall. Instead she gestured vaguely around her.

"Wherever," she said, looking out the window into the yard.

The Bush Plan: Burn All the Fossil Fuels as Fast as You Can

Tim Barnett, a leading oceanographer just retired from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, this Monday gave a talk to a convention of fire ecologists in San Diego called Future Climate of Earth: A Sneak Preview.

Barnett began by saying that he had seven grandkids, and he didn’t like to think about the world they were going to inherit from us. He then went on to succinctly explain why we know global warming is human-caused. Most of the warming in the earth is stored in the oceans–84%, Barnett said–and we have exact measurements of that warming, from millions of observations collected at various depths by over 3,000 buoys in oceans around the world over the last fifty years.

Because global temps have begun to soar in recent years, even as solar radiation has varied little, the sun can be eliminated as a cause, as can volcanic activity.

And if you look at the chart below, which tracks observations of warming in oceans around the world, you will see that natural variability does not come close to matching the observed warming, and that variability in a greenhouse gas scenario matches well. This is one reason scientists are confident that greenhouse gases are the cause of the recent warming of the planet.

Or, as Barnett put it in his talk: "The models got it right, and in six different oceans," each with its own warming.

But what troubles Barnett is that these models, which are already predicting huge climate changes, do not consider "the physics" of two known warming factors. Neither of these planetary changes was a significant factor in the past, which is why they are not incorporated into today’s models, but both are likely to become major problems soon, if they are not already.

One is the break-up of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which James Hansen discussed–with alarming slides–last year.

The other is the vast amount of methane, a greenhouse gas over twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide in the short run, being released by permafrost melting in warming Arctic regions. Barnett pointed out that in Alaska, travel over roads in the Arctic tundra passable only when frozen is now down to 100 days a year or less, from 200 days a year just thirty years ago.

"That’s the "olden times,"" Barnett noted. "Thirty years ago, the olden times." He had a number of other striking remarks.

McCain Challenges Bush Admin Official on Global Warming Data

Numerous, even countless, examples of the Bush administration’s eagerness to shove the global warming issue under the rug can be cited, but one of the most obvious has been its flat-out refusal to have NOAA file the decadal data, as required by the act that authorized the US Global Change Research Program. Yesterday John McCain made an issue of that: a Talking Points Memo post expertly summarizes the controversy. For more on the subject, keep an eye on whistlerblower Rick Piltz’s Climate Science Watch.

Depression: Beyond a Little Pill

Probably the best book I’ve read this year is Andrew Solomon’s The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression, which begins as a look at the New Yorker’s writer’s horrifying and almost inexplicable struggles with depression after publishing a novel. The book becomes a years-long exploration into all aspects of the disease: medical, historical, psychological, personal, cultural. It’s a tour de force, and a great book. My readers tend to be people unafraid of seriousness, to their credit, and in my experience, serious people tend to be people vulnerable to and often familiar with depression, which is not sadness, but something far more deeply rooted, and far more frightening.

But I’ll stop blathering now and recommend a column in todays NY Times by Solomon called Our Great Depression, which offers a great idea to help. Solomon begins by pointing out that depression is the most common cause of disability worldwide, and that suicide is the 11th most common cause of death in the U.S. We must take this disease more seriously, without fear or shame. A model exists:

We need a network of depression centers, much like the cancer centers established in the 1970s.

Through the National Cancer Institute, federal funds were dispersed to interdisciplinary centers like Memorial-Sloan Kettering in New York and M.D. Anderson in Houston. The idea was to make sure that 80 percent of the American population lived within 200 miles of such a center.

As this network of institutions took root, the quality of cancer treatment advanced dramatically. The centers brought researchers and clinicians under one roof, ensuring that basic science was applied to achieve medical results. Scientists communicated both within and between centers, so that everyone could make use of everyone else’s work to accelerate progress.

The amazing thing about depression is that although it can leave physical scars in the brain, the disease nonetheless can be overcome, and we’re starting to understand exactly how. It’s time we as a people stopped pretending that a disease this prevalent and this serious is a guilty secret.

A Heated Question

From Stuart Carlson at the Washington Post:

Sunday Morning on the Planet: Fall Colors

The fall colors have yet to show in Southern California…and yes, you wise guys, SoCal does have fall colors. Specifically, in the sycamores and black walnuts, both of which are abundant in Ventura County.

But in the Midwest, where my good friend August Jennewein now lives, they have arrived. Aug, an excellent photographer, took this shot while on a recent visit to Notre Dame.

Pouring over the Polls, Obsessively

Reading the polls is a perilous business for an enviro in this country, because Americans who talk to pollsters say they rate protecting the environment highly, but frequently fail to back up that concern with their votes. According to a recent CBS/NY Times poll, nearly three-quarters of the country believes in global warming, and respondents told the pollsters that "environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost." But this year when it came to voting, voters almost always put the planet at the bottom of their list of priorities. In many polls taken last month, the environment didn’t make the list at all, and topped out at at a mere two percent, far below the percentages concerned about the war in Iraq, terrorism, Social Security, or even same-sex marriage.

But when it comes to puzzling out the motivations of the American voter, the polls still offer the best available clues…and some of these clues look promising for enviros this year. For more, please see this post on Grist.

Rove Repudiated: Bush Defiant

The cartoon below captures the political moment with Tom Toles’s usual prescience. But it’s worth pointing out: On this topic, as on so many others (global warming, anyone?) the experts have been vindicated. The Bush White House, which seems to take pride in stubbornly refusing to face facts, as a consequence ends up just looking stupid. Remember Karl Rove declaring that "we have succeeded in making these [Congressional] races choices between two local candidates."?

Um, not exactly. And maybe sending an unpopular President on a barnstorming tour around the country to publicize an unpopular might have been, uh, not a genius move?

Here’s a great example of expert’s forecasting from yesterday’s White House Briefing column by Dan Froomkin:

"MARK SHIELDS: . . . [W]hat we’re going to see repudiated on Tuesday, I believe, is the theory of Karl Rove. Karl Rove believed that, with a permanent Republican majority, which he thought was in the offing, you could govern the nation only with Republican legislation, written by Republican leaders, passed by Republican followers, and just be totally disdainful. . . .

JIM LEHRER: And signed by a Republican president.

MARK SHIELDS: ". . . Republican president — and be totally contemptuous of the minority legislators in the same institution with you. This election will be the revenge of the independent and the moderates; it really will."

The big question remains: Now that Karl Rove’s far-right rally-the-base-screw-the-liberals electoral strategy has been repudiated, will the White House work with Democrats on problem solving?

Early reports are not promising: According to Mike Allen’s insider spin, the prez plans "to plunge ahead with transformative goals like reworking the Social Security system for fiscal longevity." But obviously, despite blowing the political capital in gained from 2004 on Social Security last year, the White House couldn’t even get a bill up for debate in the Congress, despite controlling both houses. Their chances this year of action on Social Security are nil.

But a special shout-out to the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, and all the others who worked so hard to Say No to Pombo. They warn:

Word on the street is that Pombo and other Republicans have some nefarious legislation lined up for the coming lame duck session of Congress. My sense is that the defeated R’s are bitter and vindictive, and will try to pass some truly awful bills while they still can.

We will be watching. But for now, let’s enjoy this:

Is Climate Change Bad? Let’s Talk

James Annan is a scientist I would classify as a climatological moderate, because he thinks that what is known as sensitivity to atmospheric C02 is a little overestimated, so he forecasts temps to rise into a somewhat lower range (about 3C) than the IPCC estimates (between 2.5 and 4.1C).

He drops in a couple of qualifications. He doesn’t entirely dismiss the possibility of sudden change, and he mentions the regional costs of drought. He doesn’t mention the likelyhood of massive extinctions. But with all that said, Annan nonetheless makes an important argument:

"To boldly assert as axiomatic that "change = bad" is, I think, rather
naive and simplistic."

He has examples in mind. Warmer winters in the UK will likely mean fewer deaths overall, he says, even factoring in more heat waves such as the one in 2005 that killed over 25,000 people in Europe. And he thinks the opening of the Northwest Passage will spur trade.

Personally, I think Mr. Annan underestimates the risks of what is commonly known as global warming, and the enormity of the changes it will bring. But I very much respect him, and think you should read his argument, which unfortunately he has yet to post on his site, but so far only as a post in the GlobalChange Google group.

Take a look, and if you can, please tell me what you think.

Biggest Liars of 2006 Midterms: the Richard M. Nixon Award

"Big Lie" in the National Socialist sense of the term; that is, "a lie "so colossal" no one would believe anyone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.""

The award is named after Richard M. Nixon, the Republican who left the White House in utter disgrace, but had a long and very successful career in politics thanks largely to his ability with the Big Lie. Nixon was the one who promised voters in l968 that he would end the war in Vietnam within six months; interestingly, this year Conrad Burns (R.-Montana) similarly claimed that the Republican President of today had a plan to end the war in Iraq, but couldn’t reveal it. But since Burns only hinted at the plan, sadly, his lie isn’t big enough to count.

And your 2006 candidates are!

1) The obvious front-runner, RUSH LIMBAUGH, who claimed that Parkinson’s Disease sufferer Michael J. Fox was "either off his medication or acting" when Fox taped an ad support a Democratic candidate in Missouri who supports stem cell research. In fact, the video of Limbaugh’s lies is far worse than what was reported in the media, and includes Limbaugh’s mocking Fox’s movements, and his claim that Fox’s ad is "purely an act" and "shameless."

Takes one to know one. But interestingly, Limbaugh’s listeners did not follow his cue when the host then tried to change the subject. They kept coming back to it, to his evident frustration. One caller I heard told Limbaugh that he agreed with him, but said Limbaugh may have motivated voters who like Fox to vote a Democratic slate. Limbaugh sounded taken aback, but could not deny it.

2) Vice-President Dick Cheney’s claim that he was not referring to waterboarding torture when he told a radio interviewer that dunking terrorism suspects in water was a "no-brainer."

However, the transparency of the lie makes this a weak candidate. If no one believes in the Big Lie, it’s not doing the job.

3) President Bush’s claim that "the terrorists will win if the Democrats win."

Again, with sixty percent or more of Americans opposed to the war in Iraq, blaming terrorists and Democrats for a national desire for a change in policy is not a Big Lie likely to succeed.

4) White House spokesman Tony Snow’s claim that President Bush has been "actively engaged in trying to fight climate change."

Now, this is more like it! Snow didn’t cite any bogus factoids, though, which hurts his chances at the coveted Nixon statuette.

5) First Lady Laura Bush’s claim that notorious anti-environmentalist Richard Pombo (R.-Tracy) is an "enthusiastic steward" of our nation’s national resources.

"Steward" is a word for an estate servant that means little in the 21st century, but implies a caring and concern. But the truth is, according to the WSJ, that Pombo wants to sell off national parks and public lands, gut the Endangered Species Act, drill along the coasts…and much much more.

The First Lady wouldn’t just say that if it wasn’t true, would she?

Don’t forget to vote today…not that any of my readers likely would.