Sunday Morning on the Planet

A couple of friends have been asking questions about where to go in the Sierras. It’s great fun to attempt to answer such questions, although it arouses my own desires to visit again, even if along a popular well-trod trail, and even if I won’t have enough time to lose myself properly. Who knows; maybe next month, with luck.

Along these lines, I came across a wonderfully poetic essay in the most recent issue of the quarterly ISLE (Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment). It’s not posted, so I’ll quote a couple of key graphs from "Un-Hating the Muir Trail," by David Oates:

Regular streams–of water–are produced by gravity; first sun, then wind and a few other elementary dynamics, then gravity. Down it comes, down blindly seeking down, and (miraculously) producing snowbanks, tarns with tadpoles, silverdollar cirque-lakes, waterfalls, cascades, meanders, trout pools, and all the rest of it. Amazing–just water gravitating, trying to go down…

A trail is created by equally invisible and hard-to-define forces. A stream of human footfalls is driven by a force of will and intention. Its gravity is desire. It can go up as well as down. Its elementary dynamics include longing, hearsay, loneliness, sociableness, love, curiousity, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.

In the Great Western Divide the Muir Trail ends on Mt Whitney, the high point of the continent south of Alaska. Think of it: a stream of desire flowing upwards right to the summit.

And why not see this, too, as beautiful? A river of human beauty splashing and coursing through some of the most unhman beauty imaginable. Or not unhuman, exactly, but maybe more-than-human, trans-human beauty. Our little current of loving hiking seeing just one thread in the hugest of evermoving tapestries, peaks and valleys, carpenter ants and fir needles, gravities and carbon cycles…and us.

Yes! And here’s a shot of the trail in the Southern Sierra, near Bullfrog Lake, a scene of very ordinary beauty…

[Firefox users: we appreciate your patience as we work to solve a technical problem]

Nearbullfrong_lake

We Interrupt This Blog for Donald Hall

A couple of days ago, Donald Hall was named poet laureate of this great (if sometimes misguided) nation.

A better choice could hardly be imagined: Hall has the deep literary roots and the skills to impress the academics (see his delightful "Mr. Eliot," about meeting, yes, T.S. Eliot)…but also the common touch, the ability to speak plainly and reach ordinary people, that so many academics lack.

For an idea who Hall is as a person, take a look at this warm, admiring essay by Dana Gioia, which begins with a wonderful anecdote.

Once Hall wrote a piece about the great sculptor Henry Moore for ‘The New Yorker," and had a chance to meet the man, a hero of Hall’s. With his fierce, unashamed sincerity, Hall actually asked Moore what the secret of life was, and Moore actually told him:

"The secret of life is to have a task, something you devote your entire life to, something you bring everything to, every minute of the day for your whole life. And the most important thing is—it must be something you cannot possibly do!"

Out of this insight came one of Hall’s best books (and a great book for writers) called "Life Work." The only negative in the book is that when Hall talks about his labors, it becomes apparent that he works so hard that few could even hope to keep up with him.

But if you ever have a chance to see him read, do yourself a favor and go. With his simplicity, his insight, and his kindness, he will touch your heart as few others can, be they poets or not.

Here’s a short poem by him from "The Museum of Clear Ideas" called "Routine":

        In the bliss of routine
–coffee, love, pond afternoons, poems–
        we feel we will live
forever, until we know we feel it.

Donald_hall_nytimes_photo

Chinese Coal Pollution Reaches the Sierras

"China is generating such enormous quantities of pollution [from coal plants] that the effects are felt farther downwind than usual. Sulfur and ash that make breathing a hazard are being carried by the wind to South Korea, Japan and beyond."

"Not enough of the Chinese emissions reach the United States to have an appreciable effect on acid rain yet. But, they are already having an effect in the mountains in West Coast states. These particles are dense enough that, at maximum levels during the spring, they account at higher altitudes for a fifth or more of the maximum levels of particles allowed by the latest federal air quality standards. Over the course of a year, Chinese pollution averages 10 to 15 percent of allowable levels of particles."

[Still]

"For all the worries about pollution from China, international climate experts are loath to criticize the country without pointing out that the average American still consumes more energy and is responsible for the release of 10 times as much carbon dioxide as the average Chinese. While China now generates more electricity from coal than does the United States, America’s consumption of gasoline dwarfs China’s, and burning gasoline also releases carbon dioxide."

From a saddening story about coal plants in China in the NYTimes.

Submerged City

Adam Zagajewski, author of the immortal Mysticism for Beginners, has a new work out in this month’s issue of Poetry that I’ve been thinking about for days. See if it does the same for you.

Submerged City

That city will be no more, no halos
of spring mornings when green hills
tremble in the midst and rise
like barrage balloons–

and May won’t cross its streets
with shrieking birds and summer’s promises.
No breathless spells,
no chilly ecstasies of spring water.

Church towers rest on the ocean’s floor,
and flawless views of leafy avenues
fix no one’s eyes.

And still we live on calmly,
humbly–from suitcases,
in waiting rooms, on airplanes, trains,

and still, stubbornly, blindly, we seek the image,
the final form of things
between inexplicable fits
of mute despair–

as if vaguely remembering
something that cannot be recalled,
as if that submerged city were traveling with us,
always asking questions,

and always unhappy with our answers–
exacting, and perfect in its way.

(translated by Clare Cavanaugh)

Catching Up to Hurricane Season

Hurricane season began last week with a flood of facts that completely blew out the information belief systems of yours truly. Extensive knowledge repair and reconstruction was required.

While digging out of the wreckage, here are some of the things I’ve learned:

1)    Hurricane experts–led by William Gray –say there is a one-in-eleven chance that a hurricane Category 3 or stronger could hit the East Coast between New York City and Cape Cod, according to a story in the Wall Street Journal [that is not on-line].

One such storm came ashore on Long Island with waves thirty to fifty feet high in l938, killing fifty people, in a time when millions fewer lived in the area.

According to the NYTimes [$] Nationwide Insurance will not cover homes within a half-mile of the Long Island coastline. Allstate, which lost $1.55 billion in the third quarter last year, is dropping "thousands" of customers, according to the WSJ, while rival Metlife Auto & Home is greatly restricting the amount of coverage it writes, requiring hurricane shutters or storm windows, and raising the deductible. 

Both insurers say the hurricane of 1938 has factored into their thinking. Back then, few people understood what was coming. While still out at sea, the hurricane at one point was traveling at 70 miles an hour, which remains the record for the fastest moving storm, according to a history compiled by Scott Mandia, a meteorology professor at Suffolk County Community College. At the time, however, most forecasters believed the storm would veer out to sea.

Instead, it plowed into Long Island, but the damage was limited because so much of the island was farmland. A repeat now could be deadlier, and almost certainly costlier. Then, Long Island was home to 600,000 people. Now it has more than 2.8 million. Median home values have risen 30% since 2003 to $475,000, among the highest values in the nation.

"If that were to hit today in the same area, it would rival Hurricane Andrew, if not more so, as far as damage done," says Mike Wiley, meteorologist in charge of the National Weather Service’s forecasting office on Long Island. If the most forceful winds hit closer to New York City, he added, "It would surpass the damage that we just saw with Hurricane Katrina." And he adds that "statistically, we’re overdue."

Hurricanefloydl999nasa

(Early News from Hurricane Season 2006)

2)    At Environmental Economics, Tim Haab introduces a Panic Scale to grade hurricane season forecasts with, with categories from EEPS 5 ("Holy Bleep! Enjoy the Time You Have Left") to EEPS 1 ("Problem? We Don’t See a Problem").

Most newspaper headlines on the season this year came in a 3, although FOXNews came in at a 6. More seriously, Dr. Jeff Masters pointed out that:  

The latest 2006 Atlantic hurricane season forecast from the forecast team at Colorado State University (CSU)…is predicting 17 named storms (10 is average), nine hurricanes (six is average), and five intense hurricanes (2.3 is average). This is the highest level of activity they have forecast in their 23 years of making these predictions. They put the odds of a major (Category 3-4-5) hurricane crossing the U.S. coast at 82% (average for last century is 52%). The U.S. East Coast (including Florida) has a 69% chance of a major hurricane strike (31% is average), and the Gulf Coast, 38% (30% is average).

[my emphasis]

3)    In another hurricane-related post, Masters asked a great question about what happened last year in New Orleans:

How is that Mexico, a much poorer country than our own, suffered only four deaths from Hurricane Wilma last year? Recall that Wilma hit the most heavily populated tourist area of Mexico as a Category 4 hurricane, and sat over Cancun for three days. And Hurricane Emily hit Mexico twice, first as a Category 4 at Cozumel, then as a Category 3 near Texas. But no one died in Emily! The difference is that the government of Mexico made a determined effort to evacuate those at risk, and provided transportation. In the U.S., a totally inadequate effort was made–in part, because the people affected were poor and of little concern to the politicians. The City of New Orleans was primarily responsible for coming up with a hurricane evacuation plan, with help from both the state and federal governments. All three branches of government failed this responsibility. In fact, a repeat of Katrina is entirely possible–newly re-elected Mayor Nagin has not yet come up with a workable plan to get those without transportation out of New Orleans for the next hurricane.

4)        In Florida, according to the NYTimes [$], State Farm dropped coverage for 39,000 properties near beaches, and will no longer insure condominiums and co-ops in the state. Allstate transferred coverage for 215,000 homes to smaller subsidiaries. The paper warns:

When insurance companies refuse to provide coverage, the states offer bare-bones policies through insurance pools or state-run companies. But in Florida and Louisiana, the state-run companies are on the verge of collapse. In Mississippi, the officials who run the state insurance agency have told regulators they need to raise rates fivefold to remain in operation.

5)        Even down here in Southern California, hurricanes are possible. Steve Bloom (who invented the wonderfully geeky phrase "charismatic megaweather" to describe them) sent news of Hurricane Linda that almost hit Southern California in l997. But William Patzert, of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, says we are entering a neutral El Nino/La Nina condition he likes to call "La Nada," in which trade winds disrupt the formation of potential hurricanes, and–courtesy of the EarthSky program–posts a picture for those of us who need to see things to remember them:

Lanada

And my meterological pal Brad sends along a wonderful chart of hurricane activity in the East Pacific in l997, which shows how rare Linda was in Southern California storms.

L997eastpacificstorms

Global Warming on One Page

One of the many good ideas that came out of the Yale Project on Climate Change was simply to put together a one-page version of the consensus science on climate change, and what it means for us here on earth.

By chance, Roger Ebert as a veteran reviewer happens to have done that, and quite well, I think, and his version is posted below. I’ll continue to post more good versions as they come along, but this is actually the best I’ve seen to date.

(A personal note: For reasons mysterious to yours truly, despite the fact that he has been reviewing movies for almost forty years, is a reliable, amusing, and insightful critic, and has even won the Pulitzer Prize, it seems that people just cannot give Ebert his due. Often I hear him called "Gene Siskel," even though his former partner died seven years ago. Or they call him "the fat one." Perhaps it’s because Ebert is a better writer than he is a TV performer. Or perhaps people just don’t like critics. Or perhaps people don’t like people named Roger. Anyhow! Please look at the following as writing, and ask yourself: Is this not a good summary of the challenge of global warming?)

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH (summary/review by Roger Ebert)

I want to write this review so every reader will begin it and finish it. I am a liberal, but I do not intend this as a review reflecting any kind of politics. It reflects the truth as I understand it, and it represents, I believe, agreement among the world’s experts.

Global warming is real.

(Roger Ebert’s review/summary of "An Inconvenient Truth," continued)

It is caused by human activity.

Mankind and its governments must begin immediate action to halt and reverse it.

If we do nothing, in about 10 years the planet may reach a "tipping point" and begin a slide toward destruction of our civilization and most of the other species on this planet.

After that point is reached, it would be too late for any action.

These facts are stated by Al Gore in the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Forget he ever ran for office. Consider him a concerned man speaking out on the approaching crisis. "There is no controversy about these facts," he says in the film. "Out of 925 recent articles in peer-review scientific journals about global warming, there was no disagreement. Zero."

He stands on a stage before a vast screen, in front of an audience. The documentary is based on a speech he has been developing for six years, and is supported by dramatic visuals. He shows the famous photograph "Earthrise," taken from space by the first American astronauts. Then he shows a series of later space photographs, clearly indicating that glaciers and lakes are shrinking, snows are melting, shorelines are retreating.

He provides statistics: The 10 warmest years in history were in the last 14 years. Last year South America experienced its first hurricane. Japan and the Pacific are setting records for typhoons. Hurricane Katrina passed over Florida, doubled back over the Gulf, picked up strength from unusually warm Gulf waters, and went from Category 3 to Category 5. There are changes in the Gulf Stream and the jet stream. Cores of polar ice show that carbon dioxide is much, much higher than ever before in a quarter of a million years. It was once thought that such things went in cycles. Gore stands in front of a graph showing the ups and downs of carbon dioxide over the centuries. Yes, there is a cyclical pattern. Then, in recent years, the graph turns up and keeps going up, higher and higher, off the chart.

The primary man-made cause of global warming is the burning of fossil fuels. We are taking energy stored over hundreds of millions of years in the form of coal, gas and oil, and releasing it suddenly. This causes global warming, and there is a pass-along effect. Since glaciers and snow reflect sunlight but sea water absorbs it, the more the ice melts, the more of the sun’s energy is retained by the sea.

Gore says that although there is "100 percent agreement" among scientists, a database search of newspaper and magazine articles shows that 57 percent question the fact of global warming, while 43 percent support it. These figures are the result, he says, of a disinformation campaign started in the 1990s by the energy industries to "reposition global warming as a debate." It is the same strategy used for years by the defenders of tobacco. My father was a Lucky’s smoker who died of lung cancer in 1960, and 20 years later it was still "debatable" that there was a link between smoking and lung cancer. Now we are talking about the death of the future, starting in the lives of those now living.

"The world won’t ‘end’ overnight in 10 years," Gore says. "But a point will have been passed, and there will be an irreversible slide into destruction."

In England, Sir James Lovelock, the scientist who proposed the Gaia hypothesis (that the planet functions like a living organism), has published a new book saying that in 100 years mankind will be reduced to "a few breeding couples at the Poles." Gore thinks "that’s too pessimistic. We can turn this around just as we reversed the hole in the ozone layer. But it takes action right now, and politicians in every nation must have the courage to do what is necessary. It is not a political issue. It is a moral issue."

When I said I was going to a press screening of "An Inconvenient Truth," a friend said, "Al Gore talking about the environment! Bor…ing!" This is not a boring film. The director, Davis Guggenheim, uses words, images and Gore’s concise litany of facts to build a film that is fascinating and relentless. In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.

Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be "impartial" and "balanced" on global warming means one must take a position like Gore’s. There is no other view that can be defended. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, has said, "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." I hope he takes his job seriously enough to see this film. I think he has a responsibility to do that.

What can we do? Switch to and encourage the development of alternative energy sources: Solar, wind, tidal, and, yes, nuclear. Move quickly toward hybrid and electric cars. Pour money into public transit, and subsidize the fares. Save energy in our houses. I did a funny thing when I came home after seeing "An Inconvenient Truth." I went around the house turning off the lights.

Algoreandkatrina